THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM IN ITS 
NEWEST LIGHT 



The Heidelberg Catechism 
In Its Newest Light 



REV. PROF. JAMES V GOOD, D. D., LL. D. 

OF CENTRAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 



AUTHOR OF 

"ORIGIN OF THE REFORMED CHURCH OF GERMANY," "HISTORY OF THE 
REFORMED CHURCH OF GERMANY," "HISTORY OF THE REFORMED 
CHURCH IN THE U. S.," "HISTORY OF THE REFORMED 
CHURCH IN THE U.S. IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY," 
"FAMOUS WOMEN IN THE REFORMED CHURCH," 
"FAMOUS MISSIONARIES OF THE REFORMED 
CHURCH," "FAMOUS PLACES OF THE 
REFORMED CHURCH," ETC. 



PHILADELPHIA 
PUBLICATION AND SUNDAY SCHOOL BOARD OF THE 
REFORMED CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES 
19 14 




Entered, according: to the Act of Congress, in the year 1914 
By REV. JAMES I. GOOD, D. D., LL. D. 
In the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washing-ton 



JUN 1914 

PRESS OF BERGER BROS., PHILADELPHIA 

©CI.A376337 



PREFACE 



This work on the Heidelberg catechism is intended 
to give the new light that has been thrown on the cate- 
chism, mainly within the last fifty years, — since the Ter- 
centenary Jubilee was held, in 1863, by the Reformed 
Church in the United States. However, it also includes 
some light previous to that time, but which does not 
seem to have attracted the attention of the American 
writers on the catechism. 

A number of the chapters have been delivered as 
Addresses during the 350th Anniversary of the Catechism. 
The form of address, therefore, appears in a number of 
places, especially in the last two chapters. Because de- 
livered as Addresses, there is occasionally a reduplication 
of thought and expression. 

The author is especially indebted to the librarians of 
the libraries of the Leyden and Utrecht universities, and 
also of the Royal Library at the Hague, Holland; to 
private docent Charles de Erdos, of Debreczin, Hungary ; 
Superintendent Dusek, of Kolin, Bohemia; Rev. Mr. 
Bekker, a Dutch missionary of Java; Rev. Mr. Fliedner, 
of Madrid, Spain; Rev. Prof. Wyckoff, of India; Rev. 
Dr. Schneder, of Japan ; Revs. Drs. Amerman and Cham- 
berlain, of the Dutch Reformed Foreign Mission Board; 
Prof. Mulinen, of Berne, Switzerland; Rev. Mr. Rauws, 
of the Dutch Missionary Societies of Rotterdam ; Rev. Mr. 
Clark, Superintendent of the Methodist Missions of 
Rome; also the Church Missionary Society of London, 



vi 



PREFACE 



and Rev. Mr. Geist, of Riga, Russia, for aid given on the 
translations of the catechism. The author also desires 
to express his obligations to Rev. A. S. Bromer for sug- 
gestions as to the details of its publication. He sends out 
this book as a result of the 350th Anniversary of the 
Catechism, and for the greater glory of this book, which 
has been such a blessing to the Reformed Church and 
the world. 

P. S. — The author would call attention to the binding 
of this book (blue and white), which were the colors of 
the Palatinate and of Elector Frederick III. The shield 
in the corner of the cover is the shield in the upper right 
hand corner of the Palatinate coat-of-arms, printed in 
black and white in the title-page, opposite page 4. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



PART I 

THE WORLD-WIDE CIRCULATION OF THE 
CATECHISM 

PAGE 

Chapter 1. The Translations 3 

" 2. Interesting Facts Connected with the Trans- 
lations 22 

PART II 

THE SOURCES OF THE CATECHISM 

Chapter 1. The Previous Catechisms 39 

" 2. The Catechism of Ursinus' Boyhood 80 

" 3. Peter Ramus and his Significance for the 

Catechism 102 

PART III 

THE AUTHORS OF THE CATECHISM 

A — Elector Frederick III 

Chaptfr 1. The Conversion of Elector Frederick III to 

the Reformed Faith 123 

" 2. Is there a Melancthon-Calvinistic Theology. 173 
" 3. The Defense of the Catechism by Elector 

Frederick III 184 

B — Casper Olevianus 

" 4. The Threatened Martyrdom of Olevianus at 

Treves 201 

C — Zachariah Ursinus 

" 5. Ursinus' Conversion to the Reformed 242 

" 6. Crato of Crafftheim, Ursinus' Patron 255 

" 7. The University Days of Ursinus 268 



viii 



CONTENTS 



PART IV 

CONCLUSION 

Chapter 1. The Peculiar Significance of the Publica- 
tion of the Catechism in 1563 283 



ILLUSTRATIONS 



The Square of Zocodover, Toledo, Spain Frontispiece 

Title-page of the Original Edition in the German Lan- 
guage Opposite page 4 

Title-pages of the Latin Translations Between pages 10-11 

Title-page of the Dutch Translation Opposite page 16 

" French Translation Opposite page20 

" " Greek Translation Opposite page 24 

" Polish Translation Opposite page 30 



" Lithauanian Translation . Opposite page 36 
The First Answer of the Italian Translation. Opposite page 40 
Title-page of the Bohemian Translation. . . .Opposite page 46 

" Rom ansch Translation .. Opposite page 50 
Title-pages of the Malay Translations. . .Between pages 56-57 
The First Answer of the Javanese TRANSLATioN.Opposite page 62 
Title-pages of the Portuguese TRANSLATiON.Between pages 70-71 



Title-page of the Singalese Translation Opposite page 76 

" " Tamil Translation Opposite page 84 

" " Chinese Translation Opposite page 90 

" Japanese Translation Opposite page 96 

" Sangiri Translation Opposite page 110 

" " Amharic Translation Opposite page 116 

" " Arabic Translation Opposite page 120 

" " Hungarian Translation . . Opposite page 126 

" " Spanish Translation Opposite page 130 



PART I 

THE WORLD-WIDE CIRCULATION OF THE 
CATECHISM 



The Heidelberg Catechism 



CHAPTER I 

the: translations 

"The: Heidelberg catechism, next to the Bible and the 
Pilgrim's Progress, is the most widely circulated of 
books," is the remark of one of the old writers. Whether 
this estimate, made long ago, is exactly true now may 
be questioned, as some other books have since become 
widely popular. But the fact, nevertheless, remains true ; 
the Heidelberg catechism is one of the most widely circu- 
lated books in the world. In order to have such popu- 
larity the catechism had to be translated into many 
languages. Kocher, a century and a half ago, and Van 
Alpen, a century ago, tried to describe its history and 
literature. Since then we do not know of any one who 
has tried to describe its translations in any thorough way. 
And yet the story of these translations, together with their 
history, is of wonderful interest and reveals the great 
popularity of the book. 

The original language of the Heidelberg catechism 
was, of course, the German,* because it was composed for 
use in a German state, the Palatinate, in southwestern 
Germany, where it was published early in 1563. A num- 
ber of German editions appeared in that year. Their 

* See its title-page opposite the next page. 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



number has been generally given as four, but Rev. Pro- 
fessor Goeters, of Bonn university, who has been making 
researches, has found other editions of that year. 

It has been a question which language had the honor 
of the first translation. No less than three translations 
appeared in that first year. Heretofore, it has been sup- 
posed that the Latin version,* made by Rev. Mr. Lagus, 
of Heidelberg, together with Professor Pithopoeus, of the 
Latin school there, was the first. For Latin was the uni- 
versal language of that day, the language of literature, 
commerce and diplomacy ; and so the catechism was early 
translated into that language for use in the higher schools 
and universities. But the late Professor Doudes, of the 
University of Utrecht, who was one of the great authori- 
ties on the catechism, has in his researches unearthed two 
Dutch translations of 1563, one published at Heidelberg. 
The other was published at Emden, that Reformed city at 
the northwestern corner of Germany. Now this Emden 
translation was made from the second edition of the 
catechism, while the Latin was made from the third edi- 
tion. The Emden Church may, therefore, have made this 
translation before the third edition appeared. The truth 
probably was that the Reformed Church at Emden, the 
first of the Reformed Churches in Germany, seems to have 
been so delighted to have another Reformed Church in 
Germany that it did not wait long, but hastened to put 
itself under the powerful protection of the Elector of the 
Palatinate by publishing his catechism in Dutch, which 
was the language of Emden at that time, so that it might 
be used in its churches and schools. From these facts it 
looks very much as if the Dutch translation was made 

* See two Latin title-pages : one of 1563, the other of 1585, 
between pages 10-11. 



Cat cch ifmus 

(Dbet 

€§iiftlt$tt Wntwtitfyf 

wit ber in%it<hm vnb €5dE>tM 
left bet: C^tfdrflltc^ett 
pfalBgerriebeii 
wrbt* 




<Bebtt>cft in bet C&ttififtftfr 

3^4rtrtctntn«ycr» 
« f <? % 

The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the German 
language (the original language). See page 3. 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



5 



before the Latin. But whether so or not, the catechism* 
soon came into use in the Netherlands, for in 1566 it was 
used in Amsterdam by Peter Gabriel, in spite of the per- 
secutions of that time, and in 1568 it, together with 
Calvin's catechism, was adopted by the Dutch synod of 
Wesel. Later this adoption was completed by the action 
of the Dutch synod of Dort in 1574. In 1618-1619 the 
General Synod of the Reformed Churches of Europe, also 
held at Dort, adopted it, and thus virtually made it the 
ecumenical symbol of the Reformed Churches, because 
that synod had in it delegates from most of the National 
Reformed Churches. This Dutch translation is now used 
not only in Holland but also by the Boers in South Africa, 
in the Dutch East Indies, in the Dutch West Indies and 
in Dutch Guiana in South America. 

A third translation, of 1563, has been one that has 
caused considerable discussion. This translation was 
made into the German language. But why, if the cate- 
chism was already originally in German, was it necessary 
to translate it into German. That has been the interest- 
ing question. The title-page of this translation bears the 
words, "in the Saxon language." Prof. Doudes, who 
found this edition, supposed that it was translated into 
the language of northern and eastern Germany because 
the North-German was different from the South-German 
of the Palatinate, the original language of the catechism. 
And some very interesting questions have arisen as to 
why Elector Frederick III had it translated into a dialect 
in which there was not, at that time, a single member of 
the Reformed Church. But all questioning has been re- 
cently set aside. At the recent meeting of the Reformed 
Alliance of Germany, at Wesel, where we showed some 
parts of this version, they pronounced it to be in the Platt- 

* See its title-page, opposite page 16. 



6 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



Deutsch dialect — that is, the dialect of German as it is 
spoken on the borders of Holland. And this translation, 
made so early, explains why the Reformed faith so 
quickly took hold in the region of the northern Rhine, as 
at Wesel, and in the county of Berg, around Elberfeld. 

In addition to these three translations, made in 1563, 
two others were made very early, and they were made 
into languages far distant from the Palatinate, and widely 
separated from each other. All this only shows how 
quickly the Heidelberg gained popularity. Far off to 
the southeast, a translation appeared in Hungarian. The 
catechism found its way into Hungary because of the 
conflicts there, at that time, about the Lord's Supper. 
The ministers of Kolesvar, having written to the Heidel- 
berg theologians about their strife, the latter, in sending 
their reply, sent with it the newly-issued Heidelberg 
catechism. From that time, says Szilaggi, it spread 
through Hungary with the rapidity of lightning. It sup- 
planted other catechisms, as by Batisius and Siderius, and 
even Calvin's catechism. In 1567, the Synod of De- 
breczin ordered it to be used in the churches and schools. 
The first translation, made at Papa, 1577, was revised by 
Rev. Francis Szarasy, the Reformed pastor at Debreczin, 
in 1604, and was still further revised by Molnar and pub- 
lished in Germany (at Hanau, 1608, and Oppenheim, 
1612). 

Also at the other end of Europe, far to the northwest, 
a translation appeared in the English language, made, as 
it says on the title-page of the edition of 1572, by William 
Turner, Doctor of Physic. As he died in 1568, it must 
have been made before that time. Thirlwall mentions 
an edition of 1570. Of the edition of 1572, there is a 
copy in the British Museum and another in the Bodleian 
Library, at Oxford. It was also published in 1578. The 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



7 



publication of so many editions in so short a time shows 
that it very quickly gained popularity in England. 

Thus, within five years after its publication, the 
Heidelberg had been already translated into five lan- 
guages. Then, several more translations appeared before 
the end of the sixteenth century. Prof. David Pareus, 
the successor of Ursinus as professor at Heidelberg uni- 
versity, states, in 1633, tnat a translation of the Heidel- 
berg was made into Hebrew by Tremellius, the converted 
Jew, who was professor of Hebrew at Heidelberg uni- 
versity. It must have been made before 1580, when he 
died. We have, as yet, been unable to find a copy of 
this translation, though we found a translation by Tre- 
mellius of Calvin's catechism into Hebrew, made before 
the Heidelberg was published. There is a missionary 
suggestion about this translation of the Heidelberg. Tre- 
mellius was one of the first Protestants to be interested 
in the conversion of the Jews, and the catechism was 
translated for that purpose. It was, therefore, the se- 
cond attempt by Protestants at missions, the first having 
been made by Calvin, in Brazil, in 1557. 

A translation into the French language* appeared at 
Heidelberg in 1570, a copy of which is to be found in the 
library of the university of Leyden. Although the Hei- 
delberg never became the official catechism of the Re- 
formed Church of France, which used Calvin's cate- 
chism, yet this French translation was used in the Hugue- 
not churches of Germany and Holland, and also in the 
southern part of the canton of Bern, where, in the district 
of Vaud, the French language was used. This transla- 
tion was also used in Neuchatel. 

A Greek translation was also made in the sixteenth 

* See its title-page, opposite page 20. 



8 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



century by Sylburg, in 1597, at Heidelberg. It was trans- 
lated into Greek, so that it might be sent to the Patriarch 
of the Greek Church. This edition was later published 
at Geneva, in 1609, and by the Elzevirs, in 1648. In 
fact, there were two translations into Greek, this one, by 
Sylburg, into ancient Greek, and another, made in 1648,* 
into modern Greek. One of the most elegantly bound 
translations ever published was this edition in modern 
Greek. It was published by the Dutch government, and 
at its expense, and contained also the Belgic Confession 
and the Canons of Dort. This Greek version was in- 
tended for use by Greek Christians. At that time, one 
of the burning religious questions was, "With which 
Church would the Greek Church ally herself — the Cath- 
olic or the Protestant?" Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Con- 
stantinople, visited western Europe and became deeply 
interested in the closer union of the Greek Church with 
the Protestant. But he was martyred, and the old, fos- 
silized Greek Church found the Romish Church more 
congenial. All this shows that the Dutch government 
saw its opportunity to spread the Reformed faith, and 
were quick to utilize it by the publication of the 
Heidelberg. 

Another translation was the Polish,f made by Andrew 
Prasmovius. It there became popular, notwithstanding 
that Poland had already two or three excellent catechisms. 
It is still used by the Reformed Church of Poland, which 
has passed through so many persecutions and oppres- 
sions. There was also a translation of the Heidelberg 
catechism into the Lithauanian language.} Still another 
translation, made in the reformation, was into Italian.** 

* See its title-page, opposite page 24. 
t See its title-page, opposite page 30. 
t See its title-page, opposite page 36. 
** See its first answer, opposite page 40. 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



9 



It was probably used by the Italian Reformed of the 
Swiss canton of the Grisons, southeast of Switzerland. 

We thus see that, by the end of the sixteenth century, 
only a little over a quarter-century after its first publi- 
cation, it was already translated into eleven languages: 
Dutch, Latin, Saxon-German, Hungarian, English, He- 
brew, French, Greek, Polish, Lithauanian and Italian. All 
this only reveals the unusual popularity of the book, es- 
pecially when we consider in what far-distant lands it was 
published and how it supplanted some of the best cate- 
chisms, as Calvin's, in Hungary and Scotland; Pezel's, at 
Bremen, etc. It evidently met a felt want of the Church 
by its remarkable combination of head- and heart-piety, or 
it would not have been so widely and quickly adopted. 

The seventeenth century was also a great century of 
catechism translations. Among the first translations of 
this century was that in the Bohemian language.* It was 
translated by James Akantido Mitis, in Skramnik, and 
published 1619, when the unlucky Elector Frederick V, 
of the Palatinate, became King of Bohemia. Quite a 
number of the Hussites who had been previously frater- 
nizing with the Reformed now became openly Reformed. 
Especially did Kuttenberg, where thousands of the Hus- 
sites had been thrown into the silver mines to die, be- 
come Reformed, as also Kolin and other cities. Then 
came the awful defeat of White Mountain, near Prague, 
in 1620. After that the Protestants suffered untold hor- 
rors for more than a century and a half. When, in 1781, 
Protestantism was again tolerated, most of the Hussites 
became Reformed and the catechism, as revised in 1867, 
by De Tardy, is now used by the Reformed Church of 
Bohemia and Moravia. 

Another translation of this century was made by the 

* See its title-page, opposite page 46. 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



Hungarians into the Wallachian (now called the Ru- 
manian) language, which was used in Transylvania. It 
was made by Stephen Fogorasi, pastor of the Wallachian 
Reformed Church, at Lugas, in 1648. But it never ex- 
erted much influence, as political trouble broke out in 
Transylvania in 1660. 

A translation was made into the Romansch language* 
— a language which may be called the modern Italian, 
and is still spoken in the district of the Engadine, in 
southeastern Switzerland. There is a copy of this cate- 
chism of 161 3 in the British Museum, and of 1686 in the 
library of the University of Utrecht and the British Mu- 
seum. It displaced Comander's catechism, which had 
been an imitation of Leo Juda's catechism. 

Switzerland also reveals its acceptance of the Heidel- 
berg catechism. Notwithstanding that it had had such 
excellent catechisms as Leo Juda's and Calvin's, yet the 
Heidelberg displaced them everywhere, except Zurich, 
Basle and Geneva. In 1615, the canton of St. Gall offi- 
cially adopted the Heidelberg. In 1616, the large canton 
of Bern adopted it, which led to its introduction also into 
Vaud and Neuchatel. And, in 1663, the canton of SchafT- 
hausen adopted it. Parts of it were also used in the Zu- 
rich catechism of 1609. 

But it was especially the Dutch who were prominent 
in the translation of our catechism. For to the Dutch 
the Heidelberg was the great symbol of Protestantism, 
and they aimed to spread the Reformed faith to the ends 
of the earth. As they sailed the seas over to the far 
East and the far West, they nailed the catechism to their 
masthead with their flag, and, with Dutch valor and suc- 
cess, proposed to conquer the world for it and Holland. 
The Dutch repeatedly translated it, even into languages 

* See its title-page, opposite page 50. 



CAT& 




CHESIS RE LI* 
GIONIS CHRISTIA. 

NAB, QV AB THAD1TVR 
ia Ecde/tjs & Scholis 
Palatinatus. 
€3 




HEYDELBERGAE. 
£zcudcbat MichaeiSchirae. 
M. D. LXIII. 



The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Latin 
language, recently found by Rev. Prof. Goeters of Bonn uni- 
versity. See page 4. 




Catechesis 

Religionis 

CHRISTIANAE,QVAE 

TRADITVR IN ECCLESHS 

E T SCHOLIS PAL ATINATVS* 

TESTIMOKIIS S. LlTE\Jt\V M \QV JE 
prim ad marginem dmitdxat emit numer is aetata, 
plenis integris^iam confirmata 
(? illujtrata. 

AcCESSERE 

CENS.VR^ THEOLOGORVM QV O, 
rundam in hancCatcchcfin ; Sc 

Ct.Vl%l V.ZACHA%IM V%SIKI, 
Tbeologi fummi, j>ia memorise, ad eam,ac qucejliones 
qnafdam de (jen a Domini , 

RESPONSIO ET ARTICVLI, QVlBVS 

conueniunt acdrfkident in Eucharifticacontro. 
ucrfiaEcclcfia: Euangelic?: 

G E^MJKI CE SCRIPT J Q%IMVM: 
nunc in latin am linguam tranjlata. 

SvBiVNCTA EST 

DIATRIBE SEV TRACT A TVS DE 

Vbiquitate & ornli manducatione car. 
nis Chrifti: 

2f2> IT A IK G\jtTIj£M IVVE'KTVTIS 
Vere pietatu,is pia\>eritatis amantu, 

SrVDIO ET OPERA QVIRINI ReVTERI M, 

M. D, L XXX V. 



The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Latin 
language. See oage 4. 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



II 



in which there was not a single Protestant, probably in 
the hope that it would make some of them Protestants. 
The Dutch East India and West India Companies had it 
translated into the different languages of their distant 
lands, and put their coat-of-arms on the title-page.* 
This is quite in contrast with the East India Company of 
Great Britain, for that company, for a long time, for- 
bade the introduction of Christianity into its colonies for 
fear of exciting the hostility of the heathen natives. Thus, 
when William Carey went to India, they did not permit 
him to begin work in their colony, and he was com- 
pelled to begin missionary work in the Danish East In- 
dies. And later, when Haldane proposed to go to India, 
the East India Company would not permit it. In fact, 
one of its directors once uttered the almost profane ex- 
pression that "he would rather have devils than mission- 
aries in India." What a contrast between the English 
and the Dutch East India Companies. The latter had 
the Heidelberg catechism translated and circulated among 
the natives of its colonies. With true Dutch bravery 
they never acted cowardly before their natives, like the 
British East India Company. They put their coat-of- 
arms on its title-page. They sent chaplains to their 
colonies, many of them to become missionaries. Es- 
pecially in the East Indies they did a great missionary 
work, of which we of the English language make too 
little. We hear of Ziegenbalg and Schwarz in India, 
great missionaries they were, but they were not by any 

*The monogram of the Dutch East India Company, N. V. 
O. C, as shown in our plate of the title-page of the Singalese 
translation of the Heidelberg, is generally found on the title- 
page of the catechisms published for the East Indies. Those 
Dutch Reformed were not cowardly or afraid of their heathen 
subjects but boldly declared their Christian faith. 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



means doing as great a work as the Dutch in the East 
Indias. 

The Dutch East India Company had the Heidelberg 
catechism translated in the Malay language,* Kocher says, 
in 162 1, but the first edition we can find is 1623. It was 
translated by Rev. M'r. Danckaerts and published at the 
expense of the East India Company. Two editions of 
it were published in Latin characters. Then, in 1746, 
a very curious edition appeared, an edition in the Malay 
language, but printed in Arabic characters.f It was pub- 
lished by the Dutch government, and made, as its preface 
says, for the use of the Malay pupils in the seminary at 
Batavia, so that they might, in their own characters, be 
better able to learn the doctrines of the Gospel. This 
reveals the interesting fact that the Malays seem to have 
had no written language of their own, but had accepted 
the language of their Mohammedan religion, the Arabic, 
as their own. 

The Dutch also had a translation made into the lan- 
guage of Java by Wilhelm, but in what year we do not 
know. A new edition by JanzJ was recently published 
by Rev. Dr. Bekker, a Javanese missionary. 

The Dutch East India Company also had the cate- 
chism translated and published in the Portuguese lan- 
guage in 1665 (also in 1689).** This is also a significant 
translation, for there was not a single Protestant among 
the Portuguese. But the Dutch were courageous. They 
proposed to make them Protestants and had the Heidel- 
berg ready for use when opportunity offered. O how 
great was the faith of the Dutch in their catechism ! 

* See its title-page, between pages 56-57. 
t See its title-page, between pages 56-57. 
$ See its first answer, opposite page 62. 
** See their title-pages, between pages 70-71. 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



13 



And now two hundred and fifty years later, Portugal, at 
last a republic, is opening up to the Protestantism of 
which this Heidelberg catechism was a long-ago prophecy. 

But an even more interesting translation, of which 
we shall say more presently, was the translation made 
by the Dutch into the Spanish language and published 
by the Dutch government in 1628. It was intended for 
use in its colonies in the West Indias. This Spanish 
translation has been for centuries a sort of a phantom. 
Pareus, early in the seventeenth century, in his "History 
of the Palatinate," speaks of a translation for the West 
Indies, but does not tell into what language it was made. 
Oelrichs, in 1793, calls attention to a rare translation into 
the Spanish language. Thus the Dutch government was 
ready to introduce our catechism into the East and West 
Indies, so as to make the ends of the earth Reformed. 

The eighteenth century was not so prolific in the trans- 
lation of the Heidelberg, but it is to be remembered that 
the eighteenth century was the century of rationalism, 
which blighted almost everything. Still two translations 
are to be noted. And they were both made by the Dutch 
for use in the East Indies. The first was a translation 
into the Singalese language,* the language of the island 
of Ceylon. It had been made in 1726 and was printed 
by the East India Company, at the suggestion of the 
Dutch Reformed Consistory of Colombo in the island of 
Ceylon. It was made by William Konyn, and published 
1741 (also 1769 and 1780). 

A second translation of that century was made into 
the Tamil languagef of southern India by Rev. Mr. 
Bronsveld, a Dutch minister of Colombo. It, too, was 
published by the Dutch East India Company. Its preface 

* See its title-page, opposite page 76. 
t See its title-page, opposite page 84. 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



is dated 1754 and there was another edition in 1766. It 
is still used by the Arcot Mission of the Dutch Reformed 
Church of America, the mission of the Scudders and 
Dr. Chamberlain. There is a catechism of 1730 in the 
library of the University of Leyden. It is catalogued as 
in the Malabar language, but is really in the Tamil lan- 
guage. It is not the Heidelberg, but is probably based 
on it, as it, like the Heidelberg, is divided into three 
parts. It was, according to its preface, published by the 
Dutch of Colombo. 

The nineteenth century however came in to revive the 
work of translating the Heidelberg catechism. This 
was due to the great peculiarity of the nineteenth cen- 
tury, namely the spread of foreign missions. A trans- 
lation of the Heidelberg was made into the Chinese 
language* for use in the Amoy mission of the Dutch 
Reformed Church of America. It was made in the 
Chinese colloquial of southern China and was printed, 
not in Chinese characters, but in Latin letters. 

The same Church, through its Foreign Mission Board, 
had the catechism translated into the Japanese language. 
And there was later a second translation made into Jap- 
anese about the year 1885, by Rev. Ambrose Gring, a 
missionary of the German Reformed Church of America. f 
The catechism was also translated by one of the foreign 
mission societies of Holland into the language of the 
Sangiri Islands,} which are located near the Islands of 
Celebes and the Philippines, in the southern Pacific. 

A translation was also made into the Amharic lan- 
guage, the language of Abyssinia in northeastern Africa, 
by a missionary named Isenberg, of whom we will speak 

* See its title-page, opposite page 90. 
t See its title page, opposite page 96. 
t See its title-page, opposite page 110. 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



15 



later. It was published in 1842. It is perhaps the 
quaintest of all the translations in its appearance.* 

The most recent translation is that into the Arabic 
languagef by the Dutch Reformed Church of America. 
Around the Arabic version of our catechism there has 
long hung somewhat of a mystery. Van Alpen speaks 
of such a translation, but we have not been able to 
find a copy. Professor Hottinger in the seventeenth 
century said that a translation had been made by Golius, 
the great Orientalist of that day. Whether it was ever 
published or not we know not. No copy has been found. 
It is possible that Kocher in mentioning this, may have 
confused the Malay translation, in Arabic characters, for 
an Arabic translation. But whatever uncertainty there 
may have been in the past, has all been dispelled by 
this new translation by the Dutch Reformed Board in 
1913. This Arabic translation is probably the most 
beautiful and artistic of them all, because Arabic is the 
most beautiful of languages, although the Javanese and 
Tamil versions are quite beautiful. 

We have so far mentioned the Heidelberg catechism 
in twenty-seven languages and dialects. J And there are 
some others that probably exist. Thus Van Alpen men- 
tions a Scotch version. He probably means a translation 
into English, but published in Scotland, as it is hardly 
possible that there was a translation into the old Scotch 
language, known as the Gaelic. Indeed, several editions 
of the Heidelberg were early published in Scotland, even 
in the sixteenth and the early part of the seventeenth 
centuries. 

* See its title-page, opposite page 116. 
t See its title-page, opposite page 120. 

$ The author has in his library the Heidelberg catechism in 
twenty-two languages and dialects, among them a second edition 
of the German, published in 1563. 



16 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



Professor Doudes also mentions a version of the 
Heidelberg in the Persian language. We have tried to 
find it, but it is not known by modern Persian scholars. 
It must have been in old Persian, and perhaps made by 
the Dutch government for the Eastern peoples, as it 
made the Greek version for them. It yet remains to 
be solved whether there was a version made into the 
language of the Island of Formosa, where the Dutch 
missionaries labored in the seventeenth century, and also 
whether a translation was made into the Tapuyan lan- 
guage, of Brazil, in that century, where the Dutch had 
a colony. There is also a possibility of a version of an 
abbreviation of it in one of the languages of the foreign 
mission of the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa. 
Nor does this seem to be an end to the translations of 
the Heidelberg, for within a year we have heard of the 
possibility of one or two more translations being made 
for heathen nations. 

We have not in this hurried survey paused to speak 
of the peculiarities of some of these translations. A 
passing reference might be made to the peculiarities 
of the original German edition, although these are so 
well known. The first edition of 1563 did not have the 
eightieth answer, the second had about five-sixths of 
it, and the third edition of that year added the last 
sentence that the mass was an "accursed idolatry." 

Some of the translations reveal like peculiarities. 
Thus one enlarged the catechism, the other shortened it. 
The first was the German edition of the catechism as 
used by the Canton of Bern in Switzerland. It made a 
strange addition to the twenty-seventh answer, that 
beautiful answer about God's providence. The addition 
reads : 

"And although sin through God's providence was con- 



melecrc /IjepKffc fjaoramcn 

ten / entie €ctmtmim t fit tics 35oo^ 
lucljttc^ffert / tyooc!j£rl)riioo?m !9o?f! 

&tenjo?tf/lljartoclj tit d&epe 
mt'pc* €fyttctoo?(feit; 
tJoomobpDcn lUtjtt/ 

* 



m'e»j0 tn#e&ettmptfe1jncerjfe 



The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Dutch 
language. See pages 4-5. 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



17 



trolled, yet God is not the author of sin, for the aim 
distinguishes the work. See examples of Joseph and 
his brethren, David and Shimei, Christ and the Jews." 

A very interesting question comes up as to the reason 
why this addition was made. It appears to be a relic 
of the days when Bern was very highly Calvinistic, even 
supralapsarian, as in the early seventeenth century.* 
And this seems to have been added to the catechism 
so as to explain an objection to their supralapsarian view, 
that it made God the author of sin. Over against this 
the answer says, "that God is not the author of sin." 
It is strange, however, that this addition continued in 
the catechism, for by the seventeenth century, lower 
views of Calvinism were common in Bern and in the 
nineteenth century the canton fell away from Calvinism, 
as it gave up the Second Helvetic Confession. But this 
addition has never been revised out of the catechism. 

The other amended version instead of lengthening 
the catechism, shortened it. It was the Hungarian. f 
This catechism was shortened by leaving out the parts 
offensive to the Catholics. The catechism was used 
entire in Hungary up to the reign of the Empress Maria 
Theresa. She, however, according to privat-docent Er- 
dos, of Debreczin, forbade the use of the catechism 
three times: in September 23, 1748; January 10, 1749, 
and Mlarch 11, 1757, and this decree was in force during 
her life. Her son, the more liberal Emperor Joseph II, 
permitted it to be printed and used, but it was an ex- 
purgated edition, the clauses against the Romanists being 
omitted. Thus, answer thirty is largely omitted, the 
part where it says, "they boast of Him in words, but 

* See my "History of the Reformed Church of Switzerland," 
pages 46-55 and 166-167. 

t See its title-page, opposite page 126. 

2 



18 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



deny him as Saviour, and that he is a complete 
Saviour" being left out. Also the end of answer eighty 
is cut off, "so that the mass is at bottom nothing else 
than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus 
Christ and an accursed idolatry." This expurgated cate- 
chism appeared in 1787 and was used by the Reformed 
Church of Hungary until 1891, when Prof. Joseph Erdos, 
of Debreczin, published the complete catechism, and this 
is now used. 

Time also fails to speak of the abbreviated editions 
of the Heidelberg. Thus, in German, Count John Cas- 
imir, of the Palatinate, published one in 1585. Another 
was published by Prof. F. A. Krummacher, and still 
another at Elberfeld in 1849. There were also abbrevi- 
ated editions in the Dutch, as the one made by the Sy- 
nod of Dort and in use in this country by the Dutch 
Reformed, and entitled "A Compendium of Christian 
Religion." There was also a Dutch Shorter Heidelberg 
by Bekker, 1668. Maresius published one in French, 
Martinius in Latin. Recently Rev. Prof. D. Van Horne, 
of the Central Theological Seminary, Dayton, Ohio, has 
published a fine edition with the answers abbreviated. 
The Heidelberg also served as the basis of various cate- 
chetical works, as of "The Milk of Truth," by Rev. 
Prof. F. A. Lampe (1718) and in our own Church in 
the catechisms of Helffenstein, Rahauser and others. 

Time also fails to speak of the poetical editions of 
the catechisms. Its prose was repeatedly turned into 
poetry.. Peucer published a German version (1597) 
and another was published at Wesel, 1742. Thus, Francis 
Plante, the court preacher of Count John Maurice, of 
Brazil, wrote epigrams in Latin on it, Leyden, 1679. 
Klaarbout published its questions and answers in rhyme 
in Amsterdam, 1725, and Bekker also in 1661. We 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



19 



found an interesting poetical version in German at Heid- 
elberg, done into quite good German poetry and set to 
different tunes, so that it could be sung. Its preface 
says it was made in order that illiterate people might be 
better able to learm its truth. We also found in Switzer- 
land, especially in the cantons of Schaffhausen and Bern, 
hymnbooks with catechetical hymns for its use. Thus 
John Rudolph Keller, of Bern, in 1723, published "Hymns 
on the Catechism." The Schaffhausen catechisms of 
1718 and 1763 had catechetical hymns at the end. 

But these translations of the Heidelberg are inter- 
esting, not only on account of their authors, but also 
on account of the history that is connected with them. 
There is not one of them that has not had an impressive 
history. Quite a number of them have earned the right 
to be called "Martyrs' catechisms," because the blood of 
martyrs has been shed for them. Of these are the 
German, Dutch, French, Romansch, Bohemian, Hun- 
garian, Polish, Italian and Spanish. We have space here 
to refer only to a few of them. 

Thus our German version has had its martyrs brave 
and true in the Palatinate, in Nassau and the Northern 
Rhine* 

The Dutch version has had many martyrs. One 
hundred thousand laid down their lives for their Re- 
formed faith, whose symbol was our catechism, as they 
fought and died to free their land from Spain. The 
awful sieges of Haarlem and Leyden are examples. t 

The Romansch translation saw many martyrs to it 
in the Engadime region of Switzerland, in the Thirty 

* See my "History of the Reformed Church of Germany," 
pages 16-93, 225-307, and "Famous Women of the Reformed 
Church," pages 177-205. 

t See Motley's Histories and Griffi's "Brave Little Holland." 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



Years' War.* 

The Italian version also had its martyrs at the be- 
ginning of that Thirty Years' War, in the terrible mas- 
sacre of the Valtellina, where 400 were killed, as at Teglio 
a whole congregation was killed or burned to death in 
an awful holocaust.f 

The Hungarian version has had its many martyrs, as 
in the forty Reformed ministers, who were dragged in 
chains all the way from the Danube to Naples, and there 
sold as galley-slaves. J 

The Bohemian Heidelberg catechism is also a "Mar- 
tyrs' catechism," whose adherents were not allowed to 
worship for more than 150 years. Without pastors, 
churches or sacraments, they kept the faith secretly, 
and when toleration came they declared themselves Pro- 
testants by thousands and most of them as Reformed. 

The Heidelberg catechism has thus in its various 
translations had a wonderful history, — a history often 
written in blood. Its centre the blood of Christ, it has 
itself been bought with blood, the blood of the martyrs. 
Our Church, if it manufactures another catechism, will 
never have such a catechism so full of history to send a 
thrill and inspiration like the Heidelberg. 

"They climbed the steep ascent of heaven, 
Through peril, toil and pain. 
O God, to us may grace be given 
To follow in their train." 

* See my "History of the Reformed Church of Switzerland," 
pages 90-98. 

t See my "History of the Swiss Reformed Church," pages 
84-90. 

$ See my "History of the Swiss Reformed Church," pages 
127-133. 



Catechifme, 

DES POINTS PRIN- 

CIPAVX DE LA R.ELI- 
gion Chreftienne : en forme de 
Demande,t3nt en Francois 
qu'en ADemand. 

Selon e/u il eft enfe'tgnees Eglifes Efc*> 
If j du Conte raUttrr,?rtnccElecleut 
du S. Empire, 

Auec plufieursPrieres. 

S}<wptfiu(t <Z1)tifH\4)tt U1)te drawtift 
QefttU. 3n vJrfln^ofjfcixr vnnb 

2Dfc )etln &$uUn vnt Sitfyn Ut 
f4rfW$«) k Pfal*j gr MeUn »frf. 




Imprimc par lacob Stoer, 

M. DC VII. 



The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the French 
language. See page 7. 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



21 



Modern catechisms are singularly uninspirational and 
flat as compared with the Heidelberg. Modern cate- 
chisms don't make martyrs. If our Church would make 
a great future, as she has a great past, she will cling to 
the Heidelberg. 



CHAPTER II 



INTERESTING FACTS CONNECTED WITH THE TRANSLATIONS 

There is an interesting story connected with some of 
these translations. Some of them have a romance con- 
nected with them. Others have sad and awful tragedies, 
as we have seen. Perhaps we may take time to pause 
on three which are especially interesting in regard to 
their translations. 

The first is the English version, which, of course, 
is especially interesting to us who use that language. It 
was made, as we have seen, by William Turner, doctor 
of physic. Now this translator is quite an interesting 
character, and his publication of the translation of the 
Heidelberg is quite significant. He was born at Mor- 
peth about 1 5 io, and studied at the university of Cam- 
bridge. There he became intimate with the British re- 
formers, as Ridley (who taught him Greek), and Lat- 
imer, whom he often heard preach and whose Protestant 
teachings he accepted. On account of his ability he 
was made professor there, though young. But in 1540 
he seems to have left Cambridge and traveled about, 
preaching in various places. The truth was he was one 
of the most ardent of the British reformers. He was 
hounded by the Romanizers and finally imprisoned for 
preaching without a license, for he was as yet a layman. 

When he was released, he left England and traveled 
on the continent of Europe, through Holland, Germany 
and Italy. At Bologna he studied botany and received 
the degree of doctor of medicine. From that time he 

22 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



23 



became prominent as a scientist, so that he has been called 
"The Father of English Botany." From Bologna he 
went to Zurich, where Gessner, the great naturalist says : 
"About fifteen years ago, Turner, an Englishman, re- 
turning from Italy, paid me a visit. I found him a 
man of such excellent learning, both in medicine and 
most other sciences, so that I can scarcely mention an- 
other such person." From Zurich he went to Basle, 
where he published "The Hunting and Finding of the 
Romish Fox Among the Bishops of England." It was 
dedicated to King Henry VIII of England, and was a 
bitter exposure of the Catholics in Britain. He then 
became private physician of the Duke of Emden, in 
Germany. During this time he published a number of 
Protestant books, which became so popular in England 
that the British government, which was not as yet Prot- 
estant, forbade them in 1546. 

When England became Protestant under King Ed- 
ward VI, he returned to England and became private 
chaplain and physician to the Duke of Somerset. There 
he had a private botanical garden for his use as a scientist 
at Kew, in London. Yet he was not satisfied, for he 
wanted an appointment in the Church. On February 12, 
1550, he was made prebend of a Church in York. But he 
was disappointed, for he sought a yet higher position, — 
namely, the presidency of Magdelen College, at Oxford, 
for which his ability and fame as a scientist would have 
fitted him. Dissatisfied, he was thinking about going to 
the continent again, when he was appointed dean at Wells. 
But even there he was uncomfortable, for he could not 
live in the house which belonged to the canonry, as the 
bishop refused to vacate and he complained of his un- 
comfortable quarters. On December 21, 1552, he was or- 
dained as a priest of the Anglican Church, by Ridley. In 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



1553 he was deprived of his deanery and his predecessor 
reinstated. So he left England and went to the continent 
during the reign of bloody Queen Mary. He stayed at 
Bonn, Strasburg, Spires, Worms, Frankford, Mayence, 
Cologne, Weissenberg, Chur and Basle. His books were 
prohibited by Queen Mary. 

When Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne, he re- 
turned to England, and on September 10, 1559, he 
preached at St. Paul's Cross, in London, before the Lord 
Mayor and a great audience. He then brought suit 
against the Catholic who had taken possession of his 
deanery and house at Wells. And he was restored to 
his deanery by royal order June 18, 1560. But mean- 
while, through his association with the reformers on the 
continent, he had become very low-Church in his views. 
He opposed the ceremonies of high-churchism in the 
Anglican Church and paid little attention to the authority 
of bishops. He wanted, if possible, to make the Anglican 
Church conform as much as possible to the Reformed 
Churches on the continent. One of his books was influ- 
ential in bringing about the strife between the high- and 
low-Church. He became very severe against bishops, 
calling them "white coats" and "tippet gentlemen," thus 
ridiculing their robes. Their use of the square cap was 
especially obnoxious to him, and once he is said to have 
ordered an adulterer to wear one while doing penance, 
so as to scandalize it. Once, when a bishop was dining 
with him, his trained dog, boldly and neatly plucked off 
the bishop's square hat. His bishop became scandalized 
and made complaints against his obnoxious acts and in- 
dircreet language in the pulpit in 1564. So Turner was 
suspended from the ministry for non-conformity, es- 
pecially for refusing to wear the white gown when 
officiating. He then seems to have gone abroad, for in 



TUN EKKAHZIflN 



BE A T IK H 2 



EHOMOAOTH2I2, 

KATHXH2I2, 

AEITOTPTIA, 

KANONE2 ExKAYxnctnKoL 



The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Greek 
language. See pages 7-8. 






THE TRANSLATIONS 



25 



November, 1567, he was at Weissenberg, Germany. He 
died in London, July 7, 1568, and was buried at St. 
Olave's Church on Hart street. 

He was the first Englishman who studied plants scien- 
tifically, and was therefore called "The Father of English 
Botany." His translation of our catechism was no 
doubt due to his travels on the continent. It is alto- 
gether possible that when he was at Weissenberg, Ger- 
many, in 1567, he translated it into English. But its 
appearance occurred during that period of his life when 
he was suspended from the Church for being such a 
pronounced low-Churchman. And it is altogether pos- 
sible that it was for that reason he translated it, for he 
may have wanted to show by it what the continental re- 
formers believed, and he thus made it a defense of his 
low-Church principles. 

Though he died soon after his translation of it, yet 
the catechism continued to win favor and was one of the 
first catechisms of the Anglican Church. For, in 1579, 
the university of Oxford ordered that it, together with 
several other catechisms, as Nowell's and Calvin's, 
"should be used for the extirpation of every heresy and 
the preparation of the youth in true piety." The cate- 
chism was printed, 1591, in Scotland, and was also one 
of the first catechisms of the Scotch Church, for it was 
authorized by the King's Majesty for the use of the 
Scotch Church. Rev. Dr. Bonar reprints in his "Cate- 
chisms of the Scottish Reformation," an edition of 161 5, 
"printed for the use of the Kirk of Edinburgh." The 
Heidelberg was used after Calvin's catechism, and before 
Craig's, which was supplanted by the Westminster cate- 
chisms. Rev. James Gardiner in "The Faiths of the 
World," says: "This excellent catechism was the model 
on which the Westminster divines formed the Shorter 



26 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



catechism of the Presbyterian Church." The catechism 
and Ursinus' Commentary on it soon found wide circu- 
lation in England and Scotland. The latter work was 
published at Oxford in 1587, under the title, "The 
Summe of the Christian Religion." It was translated 
by Henry Parrie, one of Queen Elizabeth's chaplains, 
and bishop successively of three sees, Rochester, Glouces- 
ter and Worcester. 

When the Synod of Dort was held (1618-19), the 
British delegates, though disagreeing with its exposition 
of the clause of the creed "He descended into hell," yet 
agreed that neither in their own nor in the French Church 
was there a catechism so suitable and excellent, and that 
those who had composed it were remarkably endowed 
and assisted by the Spirit of God, that in several of their 
works they had excelled other theologians, but that in 
the composition of this catechism they had outdone 
themselves. Bishop Hall, one of the British delegates 
at Dort, said, after his return to England : "Our Re- 
formed brethren on the continent have a little book 
whose single leaves are not to be bought with tons of 
gold." When the Palatinate was so terribly oppressed 
by war, the British published an edition of the catechism 
so as to show their sympathy. It was dedicated to King 
George I. In 1850, an edition was published by Thel- 
wall against the rising tide of tractarianism, in which he 
says he never saw a book in which the doctrine of justi- 
fication by faith was so fully and evangelically stated as 
in answer 60. The catechism was also published in 
English, in Holland, for the English Churches there. 
And later it was translated in America, into English, by 
Dr. Laidlie, of the Dutch Church, which edition is gen- 
erally in use by us. But would it not be well for the 
Dutch and German Church to unite in making an official 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



27 



translation, as there are errors in the Laidlie version of 
the Dutch Church, and also in the tercentenary version 
of the German. 

Another exceedingly interesting translation is the 
Spanish ;* indeed, it is tragically interesting, for its trans- 
lator was burned at the stake for it.f 

We have recently been able, after considerable search, 
to unearth the life of this strange but interesting man, 
whose name was John Aventrot (in German, Abendroth, 
meaning Evening-red). He was born about the time of 
the publication of our catechism at Halteren, in Flanders, 
and went to Spain in the eighties of that century. He 
was in his early life (about 1590), a resident for five 
years of the Canary Islands. There he says not a 
Bible was allowed him, so that when he left and came 
to a land of greater freedom he became a Protestant. 
He became a merchant and seems to have gone back to 
the Canary Islands, for in his trial it speaks of his having 
been arrested there by the Inquisition for heresy. He 
was charged with printing and scattering books, and for 
this was driven out. His possessions in Spain were 
also confiscated. Then it seems he lived in Peru, 
being interested in the silver mines, for he left there 
about 1601. It seems that there were some Protestants 
in South America even in those early days, though Ro- 
manism kept the door to South America tightly shut. 

In 1610 he wrote two letters to King Philip III of 
Spain (also, in 1612, another letter), in which he en- 
deavored to show him that the Pope was the cause of 
the loss to him of the seventeen provinces of the Nether- 
lands, and also of the suffering of the Spanish Colonies, 
under their enormous taxes. He therefore asked the 

*For its title-page, see opposite page 130. 
f See frontispiece. 



28 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



king to deliver his lands from the papacy. His first 
letter, written from England, was given to the King 
six months after it was written and the second, a year 
later. He published these letters in a tract in Dutch 
(1613), and in Spanish (1641). He added am exhorta- 
tion to the grandees or nobles of Spain in the hope that 
the King would grant them the privilege of examining 
the matter for themselves. Of this publication he sent 
seven thousand in a ship to Lisbon for distribution in 
Spain. He also sent, by land, one of his servants, a 
relative, John Crote. But the Inquisition ordered these 
copies to be burned. And his messenger was condemned 
to a punishment of six years in the galleys. When the 
sentence was published, the King himself went to Toledo, 
May, 1615, so that by his presence he might show his 
approval of the sentence. Aventrot, on hearing what 
they had done with his pamphlet and his messenger, 
laconically remarked : "That the Inquisition has sent my 
innocent servant to the galleys, that I commend to God; 
but that they have destroyed my seven thousand pam- 
phlets, that concerns myself, and I feel obliged again to 
send the tract ; so that the glory of God may not be dark- 
ened by that crime. By this I have made more manifest 
than ever the shame of the Pope." So he published the 
pamphlet a second time, in 161 5; in fact it was published 
in four other languages in that year — the Dutch, German, 
Latin and Italian, and in the next year in French. In 
1620, after the death of his wife, he betook himself to 
the Netherlands and lived in Amsterdam, Hague and 
Utrecht. 

In 1627 he published his "Letter to the Peruvians." 
In it was first published his Spanish translation of the 
Heidelberg catechism. In 1628, this Spanish Heidelberg 
catechism was published separately at Amsterdam. In 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



29 



this edition there were added the Dutch Reformed lit- 
urgy, together with the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. 
This "Epistle to the Peruvians" we have had copied, as 
it is connected with our new world of America, and 
shows Aventrot' s early relations with, and interest in, 
our new world. It opens with a preface to the States- 
General of Holland. In it he says he had so advocated 
the affairs of Peru, that, in 1622, the States-General 
of Holland began to equip an armada against Peru, in 
order to take it from Spain. This expedition was sent in 
1623, under General Jaques Lermyte; but it was not 
successful. Aventrot laid the blame of its failure, among 
other things, on the fact that the catechism was not sent 
with it, and so he translated it in 1627. Aventrot is 
mystical in his writings and in this letter approves of 
the use of the lot. But in it all he was a statesman ; 
for his aim was to deprive the King of Spain of Peru, 
on whose wealth Rome relied to carry out her plans to 
persecute the Protestants. He had this letter printed 
and had eight thousand copies sent to Peru. It became 
a somewhat dangerous political document, for in it he 
appealed to the Peruvians to repudiate the King of 
Spain, because of his oppressions, and also to repudiate 
the Pope. And he makes a point dangerous to Spain 
when he reminds the Peruvians, who were greatly op- 
pressed by the Spaniards, that when Charles, the previ- 
ous King of Spain, had conquered Peru, he had given 
a decree that the Indians who had aided him in the 
conquest should be freed in the fourth generation. And 
he reminded them that this came due in 1628, and he 
therefore calls them to rise to their rights and reject 
the King of Spain. The Holland States-General sent 
three thousand copies of his letter to the Peruvians, 
which was signed by them, to Buenos Ayres, in 1628, to 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



promote their uprising by offering to help them to gain 
their liberty. It proposed an alliance of Holland 
and Peru. Thus you see how far-reaching was his 
appeal. For he felt that the wealth of the silver mines 
of Peru was used by the Catholics against the Protestants, 
and he wanted Holland to wrest from them this source 
of their power. 

In 1 63 1, when many of the leading men of Peru 
went to Madrid to seek some remedy for the low con- 
dition of their commerce, Aventrot himself went to Mad- 
rid ; for on account of his prominence he had often been 
previously consulted by Spanish authorities on commer- 
cial and financial questions. At an audience with King 
Philip IV, he dared to plead for religious liberty, a thing 
Spain does not as yet have. He handed to the king two 
memorials. The answer of the King was to deliver him 
to the Inquisition, at Toledo. It happened that after 
Aventrot's death, an account of his trial and death was 
published at Amsterdam. From it we glean the follow- 
ing: "Charged with heresy in his publications, he wrote 
a Protestant confession of his faith. The Inquisition 
offered him that if he would return to Romanism, he 
would be reinstated in his properties which had been con- 
fiscated in Spain, and would be elevated to a higher rank 
than he had ever had before. But such bribes only 
found him immovable and steadfast in the faith. He 
was, therefore, delivered to the police-justice for punish- 
ment. And not only was he punished, but also his sons- 
in-law and daughters-in-law, for all their dignities and 
offices were taken away from them." The decree in 
regard to them reads thus : "We forbid them to wear 
gold, silver, pearl, precious stones, silk, beads, fine broad- 
cloth, riding horseback, bearing arms, taking part in 
military drill, etc." The sentence ordered him to be 



KATECHIZH 

HEIDELBERSKI 

UiOZONY PRZEZ TEOLOG6W 

Zacharyjasza Ursyna i Kacpra Olewiana 
i pierwotoie wydany w Heidelbergu 1563 r. 

z polecenia 
Elektora Palatynatu Fryderyka III, 
0?tq3 sai -pow$*tcbn\c usnawj i uiywany w 3to$cittt 



Wydanie drngiepoprawione, poparte dowodami z Pisma 3wietego, 
i poprzedzone historycznym wstyptrm. 

~Ha&fe%»*. 

WARSZAWA. 
W DRUKARNI ALEXANDRA GINSA. 
Nowozietna M 47. 

1900. 

The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Polish 
language. See page 8. 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



3i 



burned, May 22, 1632. This took place at that date, 
after he had been seven months in prison. There, in the 
open square of the Zocodover, at Toledo,* he, like 
Elijah the Prophet, went to heaven in a fiery chariot. 
And as his name Aventrot means "Evening red," it was 
then evening red as he passed over into heaven. Noth- 
ing is more beautiful in Switzerland than the Alpine- 
glow, which takes place as the sun sets, when the white 
Alps catch the hues of the western sky and reflect them, 
turning from white to pink and then to red, and then 
back to white again. Such an Alpine-glow surrounded 
the death of Aventrot as he went to glory in the fires 
of the Inquisition. His catechism was bought with his 
own blood as he had been bought with the blood of 
his Redeemer. It is interesting to know that this Spanish 
translation of the Heidelberg catechism is now used in 
the German Protestant missions in Spain, founded by 
Fliedner, and in the very house where King Philip II of 
Spain, their great persecutor, lived, when he built his 
great palace near Madrid, called the Escorial. This house 
is now used as a Protestant orphanage. 

Still another catechism of unique interest is the Am- 
haric version. This is such an unknown language that 
when we first found this translation we had to go to the 
Gazetteer to find out where it was spoken. It is modern 
Abyssinian. The translation has a strange history. 

It was made by a missionary, Rev. Charles Isenberg. 
He was born September 5, 1806, at Barmen, in the Wup- 
perthal, that great Reformed valley of Germany. His 
family later moved to Wesel, in northwestern Germany, 
where he was apprenticed at the age of fourteen to a 
Catholic tinner, under whom he worked for three years. 
His master was severe and ill-treated him, especially 

* See frontispiece. 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



when he found he was inclined to be religious. And yet 
all the while, from his earliest boyhood, the missionary 
call was coming to him. Finally, at the close of his 
apprenticeship, in 1823, he presented himself to the Rev. 
Mr. Kloenne, one of the pastors at Wesel, asking to be 
sent as a missionary. He and another young missionary 
applicant were examined at Wesel, November 10, 1823. 
He was approved, but it was felt, as he was yet young, 
that he had better wait some time, and meanwhile he 
spent the time in study. He then entered the Mission- 
house at Basle, December 8, 1824. After three years 
there, he went to the Berlin Mission Institute, so as to 
prepare himself to become a translator of the Bible, and 
spent two years there. 

In 1830, the Church Missionary Society of England 
(the society of the low-churchmen ini the Anglican 
Church) wanted a translator for Malta, in the Mediter- 
ranean, and he entered their service as translator. He 
then went to London to study Arabic, Ethiopic and 
medicine. But his destination was changed by the death 
of one of their missionaries, and he was sent out as a 
missionary to Abyssinia, in 1832, to labor there with 
Gobat, later bishop of Jerusalem. He, however (Janu- 
ary, 1833), went first to Egypt to study Arabic and 
Amharic. He entered Abyssinia, in 1834, with Gobat. 
They went through Tigre, the northern province of 
Abyssinia, and settled in Adowah. But the Prince, Ibie, 
was hostile and there were intrigues at court against the 
missionaries. Gobat was soon compelled to leave on ac- 
count of ill-health, and Isenberg was left there without 
any experience as a missionary or the tact to adjust 
himself. The priest of the Abyssinian Church, which is a 
curious combination of Judaism and Christianity, mixed 
with formalism, and lax morally, used all his influence 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



33 



at court against Isenberg. Rumors were spread abroad 
that not only did these foreigners intend to introduce a 
new Church, but that they were secretely digging a sub- 
terranean passage to the Red Sea, so as to lead British 
soldiers into the heart of that land. When the three 
children of Isenberg died, one after the other, the priests 
would not allow them to be buried, because they had 
not been baptized in the Abyssinian Church, and he had 
to bury them in his own garden. In 1838, the priest 
pronounced a ban on all who visited the missionaries. 
The Jesuits also intrigued against him at court, for 
they were then trying to win the Abyssinian Church to 
Romanism. On March 12, 1838, they (Blumhardt, 
Krapf and Isenberg) were compelled to leave, though 
their departure was mourned by many of the natives, 
but their friends were poor and without influence at court. 

He then went into another part of Abyssinia, to Shoa, 
where he suffered many privations, but he was soon 
recalled by the Church Missionary Society to Europe, 
so as to publish his translations for the mission. He 
arrived at London in April, 1840. It was strange that 
an Episcopalian Society would publish, at London, his 
translation of the Heidelberg catechism, and at their ex- 
pense, especially as they had a catechism of their own. 
In 1842 he went back to East Africa to make a third at- 
tempt to enter that land. He found that the missionaries 
were forbidden by the king to enter Shoa. Still the mis- 
sionaries chose a new field, hoping to enter by the province 
of Serawah, in northern Abyssinia. The missionaries 
finally got back to Adowah, May 21, 1843. As they 
went, they scattered Amharic Bibles. But when they ar- 
rived at Adowah, the Abyssinian priest demanded to 
know whether they had changed their religion and con- 
formed to the Abyssinian Church in its belief in tran- 

3 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



substantiation and the worship of Mary. Finding that 
they had not, he then excommunicated them and forbade 
them to enter the town, though many of the people were 
favorable. He committed "the souls of the missionaries 
to Satan, their bodies to hyenas, their possessions to 
thieves." Still, Isenberg did not give up. He loved 
Abyssinia in spite of the treatment he had received there. 
He was ready to give his life for them. And he would 
not leave it until every stone was turned to enable them 
to stay. He, therefore, appealed to the patriarch of the 
Coptic Church, who was somewhat favorable to Evan- 
gelical religion, but in vain. Finally, with a broken heart, 
he was compelled to leave Adowah, June 27, 1843. He 
had now been a missionary for more than ten years 
and yet had failed on all sides. He was driven out 
from that land, and yet in all his after-life he retained 
a homesickness for Abyssinia and would have gone back 
to it again. 

He went back to Germany for a time, but was then 
sent by the Church Missionary Society to Bombay, in 
India, where he labored for many years. Yet even there 
he cared for his beloved Abyssinia. When, in 1847, about 
sixty boys and girls from Africa were brought to Bom- 
bay, he helped to care for them and rejoiced in bringing 
them to Christ. This he could the more easily do as 
many of them spoke Amharic. Again, in 1849, he took 
into his house five Abyssinians, who had been brought 
there by a French ship. But he was never to return to 
Abyssinia. Still his influence remained. One of the 
later missionaries, Krapf, paid a tribute to him, saying 
that "he had been the only man who had been truly in- 
terested in the welfare of the Abyssinians, and who, 
without fear, had told the truth to everybody." Later, 
when in Germany on furlough, he helped the Basle Mis- 



THE TRANSLATIONS 



35 



sionary Society prepare missionaries for an industrial 
mission in Abyssinia, as he taught them the Amharic lan- 
guage. He remained at Bombay till 1863, when he came 
back to Germany, and died in 1864, and was buried at 
Kornthal, in Wurtemberg. To his missionary son, 
Charles, who succeeded him at Bombay, he said: "You, 
Charles, be valiant, for an exceedingly glorious work 
has been entrusted to you. Pray daily for new strength 
to execute it." 

This wonderful history of the translations of the 
Heidelberg reveals that the catechism is one of the most 
widely circulated of books. It is to-day the catechism 
in use by at least six millions of adherents and by per- 
haps eight millions. The extent of its use has only been 
limited by the extent of the world. It evidently, almost 
as soon as it appeared, met a felt want of the Christian 
world, or it would not have spread so rapidly. Its high 
position among Protestant catechisms is shown by the 
way in which it took the place of other catechisms, and 
good ones, too. Thus it succeeded Calvin's in Hungary 
and Scotland, Pezel's in Bremen, the Zweibriicken cate- 
chism at Zweibriicken, etc. It seems to have had some- 
thing that they lacked. 

What, then, has made the Heidelberg such a popular 
religious book? We believe that it was because it was 
so essentially Biblical, — so true to the Bible. Jesus once 
said : "The words that I speak unto you, they are life." 
(John 6: 63.) The Bible contains His "Wonderful 
Words of Life," and the Heidelberg catechism is the 
best echo of its words. And, like the Bible, it speaks with 
authority, because based on the Word of God. 

And as the catechism has been so true to the Bible, 
so also it has been so human, too, — that is, so true to 
human nature. True to God, it is also so true to man. 



36 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



Other catechisms there were that were splendid state- 
ments of intellectual truth or contained fine rules for 
ethical living. But the Heidelberg has something these 
others had not, and therefore supplanted some of them. 
For it was not one-sided, but whole-hearted, taking in 
all — the head, the heart and the will. It began with 
religion as a comfort and ended with a prayer. And all 
through, pulsating so loud that one can hear the heart- 
beats, is the loving heart of Christ as that love culminated 
in his sacrifice for us. The catechism meets and satisfies 
the whole human heart. Are we sad, it begins with 
comfort; are we sinful, it points to a Saviour. Do we 
want communion, it offers the sacraments as seals of 
God's grace. Do we want hope hereafter, it offers 
heaven, whose eternal life, it says, is begun here. No 
wonder the catechism spread thus universally. 



evangeli^q*reformatq til<eji» 
mo vail(ams. 



Motto: „Visak% meginkite, ir 
kas gera yra, palaikykite". 

(1 Tess. 5, 21). 



SO PRIEDAIS: 
1. Trumpa bainydios istorija. 2. Apie sventq ra$iq. 
3. Tikejimii sulyginim.as. 



VILNIUS, 
M. Kuktos spaustuve, Dvorcova 4, 
1909. 



The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Lithauanian 
language. See page 8. 



PART II 

THE SOURCES OF THE CATECHISM 



I 



CHAPTER I 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 

The study of the sources of the Heidelberg catechism 
has recently become a prominent subject. The old view 
was that Ursinus and Olevianus were the original authors 
of the work. But the latest view is that the catechism 
was not the product of two men only, but of a com- 
mission appointed by the Elector Frederick III and 
taken from the court, the university and the church. 
This commission, however, gave the preparation of the 
book to Ursinus and Olevianus, who were the main 
authors.* 

But this subject has been still further pursued, and 
now the view is that the catechism was not original with 
Ursinus and Olevianus, but that much of it was the prod- 
uct of many previous catechisms, which these two 
authors utilized in preparing it. Prof. M. A. Gooszen, 
of Leyden university (De Heidelberg Catechismus, 1890), 
and Prof. A. Lange, of Halle university (Der Heidel- 
berger Catechismus, 1907) have elaborately shown how 
they used the previous catechisms. This does not cast 
any discredit on the ability of Ursinus and Olevianus. It 
rather enhances their credit, as it reveals their great 
knowledge of the previous catechetical literature of their 
day and their wonderful ability in arranging it, and add- 
ing to it so as not merely to produce a splendid mosaic of 
others' thoughts, but also an original production, both 

*For proofs of this view, see Hauck's "Real-Encyclopedia," 
article "Heidelberg Catechism." 

39 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



in ideal and in method. 

The truth is, there has grown up a sort of higher 
criticism of the Heidelberg catechism. With the higher 
criticism of the Bible the world has become somewhat 
familiar, but how about the higher criticism of the Hei- 
delberg catechism. There is, however, this difference to 
be noted between these two higher criticisms. In the 
case of the Bible there is no contemporary or previous 
literature in the same language, so that one can safely 
make comparisons. The Old Testament is practically the 
only book in the Hebrew language. But how different 
it is with the Heidelberg catechism, for there is an abund- 
ance of catechisms to lay alongside of it for comparison. 
Because of this, the higher criticism of the Bible is pre- 
dominantly subjective, that of the catechism, objective. 
The higher criticism of the Bible has to be evolved out 
of the minds of the critics, — out of some speculative Ger- 
man's or Dutchman's mind, — because there are no ex- 
ternal sources. It is, therefore, the merest hypothesis. 
But the higher criticism of the Heidelberg catechism is 
objective, a comparison of that catechism with other cate- 
chisms previous to it. This gives us some real basis for 
higher criticism. Compared with this, how w T eak and 
unproved the higher criticism of the Bible seems. We, 
therefore, set aside the higher criticism of the Bible as 
unproved, but of the catechism as proved. And we enter 
on our task. 

But before entering on our task it might be well to call 
attention to the reason why this comparison of catechisms 
is so easy and so sure. It is because all the catechisms of 
the sixteenth century were built more or less around the 
same four subjects, — the creed, the Decalogue, the Lord's 
Prayer and the sacraments. One has simply to compare 
the corresponding answers in the different catechisms to 



ISTRUZIONE CRISTIANA 



Questa Istruzione " 6 un piccolo catechismo per domanda e n- 
sposta, scritto ia buona lingua italiana e cou dottriua evangehca • 
Cosi dicti il Catalogo della collezione Guicciardiniana stampato per 
cura del cunte Tiero Guicciardini. E soggiunge: " Non ne cono- 
sco 1' autore, ne per qual chiesa cristiana e stato fatto. " Allettati 
da questo idudizio, abbiamo trascritta 1' Istruzione in discorso, la 
quale consiste in un'aurea tradu/ioi.e del rinomato catechismo di 
Kidelberga uscito a stampa l'anno 1563. Siamo lieti di conveniro 
col conte Piero Guicciardini che la dottriua di questo catechismo 
e evangelica, e non dubitiamo che, siccome fu reputato utile dagli 
avi riformatori che lo tradussero, cosl dtbbu riuscire a' nostri di 
per le Chiese e le Scuole specialmente. 

Dimanda — Quale e la tua unica consolazione nella 
vita e nella morte? 

Risposta — Che io di corpo e anima, tanto in vita 
quanto in morte, non sia di me stesso ma del mio fe- 
dele Salvatore Gesu Cristo, il quale col suo preziosissi- 
mo sangue compiutamente hapagatoperi miei peccati e 
mi ha liberato d' ogui possanza del Diavolo, e conserva 
di modo che senza la volontfr del mio Padre celeste non 
mi pub cader pur un pelo dal capo, anzi bisogna che 
ogni cosa mi serva a salute, e perci6 mi assicura della 
vita eterna per il suo S. Spirito e mi rende pronto a 



The first question and answer of the Heidelberg catechism 
in the Italian language. See pages 8-9. 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



see wherein they agree or differ. 

To understand our subject still further, it might per- 
haps be well to give a brief history of the previous cate- 
chisms. The first Protestant catechism, according to 
Professor Lang, was a Dialogue-book by Rev. John 
Bader, of Landau, 1526, which inclined to the Reformed. 
In 1527 there was a catechism published at St. Gall and 
used there until the Heidelberg was introduced in 161 5. 
It turns out to be the catechism of the Bohemian Brethren 
slightly changed. The catechism of Ecolampadius, the 
reformer of Basle, comes next. In 1526, he published an 
address to the confirmed, and then a catechism, which 
appeared somewhere between that time and 1529, when 
it was incorporated in the Church-Order of Basle. On 
the Lutheran side, before Luther's Shorter catechism, 
1529, which marked an epoch in catechetical literature, 
the main one that had appeared was by Brenz, the re- 
former of south Germany (1528). 

About this time the catechisms, from which the Hei- 
delberg was especially drawn, began to appear. There 
were so many catechisms of that time that we must limit 
ourselves only to those directly related to the Heidelberg. 
For there were scores of catechisms published in Switzer- 
land and Germany up to 1563 and the end of the sixteenth 
century. They fill several thousand pages.* 

For the sake of the English readers, to whom the 
Dutch books of Professor Gooszen and the German work 
of Professor Lang are inaccessible, we may here give a 

* See Cohr's "The Efforts at Protestant Catechisms Before 
Luther's Shorter Catechism"; in "Monumenta Germaniae Peda- 
gogica," 4 vols., XX-XXIII, Berlin, 1900-1902; and Reu, "The 
Sources of the History of Ecclesiastical Instruction in the Prot- 
estant Church of Germany Between 1530 and 1600," Vol. I, 
South German Catechisms; vol. 2, Middle German Catechisms 
Gutersloh, 1904 and 1911. 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



brief summary of the sources of our catechism. There 
were, in the main, four sources of the Heidelberg: 

1. The Strasburg catechisms by Capito, 1527; Bucer, 
1534, and Zell, 1535 and 1537. 

2. The Zurich catechisms of Leo Juda, 1534, 1535 
and 1538, and of Bullinger, 1559. 

3. Calvin's catechism, 1537 and 1541. Sometimes 
also Calvin's "Institutes." 

4. The Lasco catechisms, Lasco's, 1551 ; Micronius', 
1552; the London compend, 1553, and the Emden, 1554. 

This subject may be considered in three different 
ways: 1, Biographical; 2, Historical; 3, Topical. 

1. Biographical. The two authors of our catechism 
were so situated in their lives that they came into con- 
tact with many catechisms. They were, therefore able, 
before writing the Heidelberg, to make a study of the 
catechetical literature of that day. This was true in the 
case of Ursinus more than of Olevianus. Olevianus had, 
in his previous life, come into contact with the catechism 
of Calvin while in France, and especially at Geneva, where 
he studied under Calvin. His predilections were all Cal- 
vinistic, and this will appear in his share of the author- 
ship of our catechism. Ursinus, however, had had a 
more wandering life, and had come into contact with 
nearly all the great catechisms. When he studied at 
Wittenberg he came into contact with the catechisms of 
Luther of 1529, and the Latin catechism of Melancthon, 
1532. Then he, in his travels, came into contact with 
Calvin's catechism and with the catechisms of Leo Juda 
and Bullinger during his stay at Zurich. He, therefore, 
had a wide acquaintance with catechetical literature 
before he came to Heidelberg. When he returned to 
Breslau to teach, in his "Introductory Address" (1558), 
he has much to say of catechisms and catechization. This 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



shows that his attention was early drawn to that subject. 

Then after Olevianus and Ursinus had come to Hei- 
delberg they came into contact with the Dutch refugees 
from London and Frankfort, who had brought with them 
the different Lasco catechisms. Indeed Ursinus, when a 
student at Wittenberg, had already become personally 
acquainted with Lasco. 

All this served to prepare them for their task of writ- 
ing our catechism. Besides, both of them had first started 
out as teachers of the young, Ursinus at Breslau and 
Olevianus at Treves. The first problem that had been 
forced upon them was the instruction of the youth in 
religion. It is interesting to note that Ursinus, in his "In- 
troductory Address" at Breslau (1558), gives a defini- 
tion of a catechism as" a sum of the doctrine of faith 
and love once delivered by the prophets and apostles — 
a sum of Christianity briefly, orderly and plainly com- 
posed," a definition which may be the germ from which 
the Heidelberg sprang four years later. All this gave a 
bent to their minds to study the subject of catechetical 
education. And out of all this came our Heidelberg cate- 
chism. Thus the providence of God prepared them as 
he had done Moses at Sinai and Paul in Arabia for their 
future lifework. 

2. Historical. There are two ways of studying his- 
torically, forwards or backwards. We can, according 
to the first, begin at a certain point and trace history for- 
wards, chronologically, up to a certain point as its culmi- 
nation. Or we can take up a certain event in history and 
trace it back to its sources. The one is the reverse of 
the other, but both methods are suggestive and serve to 
complement each other. We shall try both in this study 
of the sources of the catechism. 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



(a) comparison of ursinus' two catechisms with the; 
heidelberg 

We will take the forward method first and begin with 
the catechisms that were the immediate predecessors of 
the Heidelberg. There was an old tradition, based in 
a statement by one of the historians of the catechism, 
that Ursinus wrote two catechisms before he wrote the 
Heidelberg, and that Olevianus wrote one, and that 
out of these the Heidelberg was made. The reference to 
Olevianus seems to have been an error, for no previous 
catechism of Olevianus has been found. One of the 
historians of the Heidelberg, Seisen, thinks it refers to 
the Firm Foundation (Fester Grund) of Olevianus. But 
that work did not appear until after the catechism.* 
Again, his "Farmers' Catechism," in his "Covenant of 
Grace," also appeared later than the Heidelberg. So this 
idea about Olevianus must be given up. 

It remains, therefore, to examine the two catechisms 
which Ursinus wrote before the Heidelberg — namely, his 
Larger and Smaller catechisms, both of which in Latin, 
are at the beginning of his published "Works." How he 
came to write these catechisms has been a question. The 
best theory proposed has been that he was led to write 
the first — namely, the Larger, for use in his theological 
instructions in the Theological Seminary at Heidelberg, 
named the "College of Wisdom." He, therefore, com- 
posed his Larger catechism, which was admirably adapted 
to that purpose. Then, later, he prepared an abbreviation 
of it called the Shorter catechism, and submitted it to 

* "Fester Grund" was not begun until the fall of 1563 ; for 
on October 23, 1563, Olevianus wrote to Bullinger, "I am now 
at work on a larger catechism, in which I shall follow the 
order of the smaller." It was therefore based on the Heidelberg 
instead of the Heidelberg being based on it. 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



Frederick III for use in the Church of the Palatinate. 
The Smaller was, therefore, used as the direct basis of 
the Heidelberg, and the Larger was also used, but not 
so directly. 

Let us pause for a moment on the Larger catechism. 
In it the central idea is that of the covenant.* This cate- 
chism is of especial interest, because we can see in it 
most clearly the sources. For the ideas of the catechism 
become so modified and are so thrown together in the 
later catechisms, the Smaller and the Heidelberg, that 
it is often sometimes difficult to trace them back. The 
foundation of this Larger catechism is undoubtedly the 
catechism of Calvin. This may seem strange, for Ursinus 
was not a pupil of Calvin, but of Melancthon. But it is, 
nevertheless, true. Of the 323 questions of the catechism, 
173 refer back to Calvin's catechism, more than half.f 
The Lasco catechisms come next with 58 references to 
them. There were also 28 references to Bullinger. 

But where does Melancthon come in. There are 31 
of the answers that refer to Melancthon's "Considerations 
of Ordinances." Their comparative fewness is the more 
remarkable, not only because Ursinus had been a scholar 
of Melancthon, but because he had used this work of 
Melancthon in his first school at Breslau. But it seems 
that when Ursinus later went to Zurich he gave up Mel- 
ancthonianism for the Reformed, indeed he says so in a 
letter to Dr. Crato at that time. And yet the influence 
of Melancthon modifies some of the harder characteristics 
of Calvinism in it. 

* For the source of this idea of the covenant, whether from 
Bullinger as Gooszen says, or from Calvin and Melancthon, 
see Lang, "Der Heidelberger Katechismus," preface, 64-65. 

t Our figures concerning the sources of the catechism are here 
and hereafter mainly, though not entirely, based on Professor 
Lang's statements. 



46 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



Some of the answers are taken almost word for word 
from these sources.* There are 22 references to the 
Strasburg catechisms of Bucer and Zell, 17 to the cate- 
chisms of Juda. And 24 refer to Calvin's Institutes, 
which, added to the references to his catechism, would 
make the total references to Calvin 197, about two-thirds 
of the catechism. Evidently there was a strong sym- 
pathy of Ursinus for Calvin, their minds being very much 
of the same analytic, dialectic type. 

Let us turn, now, to the Smaller catechism of Ursinus. 
This has only 108 questions, and is about one-fifth less 
than our Heidelberg. A good many of the answers of 
the Larger are omitted, and some of them are thrown 
together in one answer. It is to be noticed that the un- 
important subjects of the Larger catechism are omitted, 
as the discussions of theological points, which were suit- 
able for Ursinus' school, but not so well adapted for 
popular use. The arrangement of the catechism, how- 
ever, is entirely different, being like the Heidelberg- 
threefold. The idea of the covenant is given up, indeed 
appears only in one or two places. Also the Lasco cate- 
chisms become more prominent as sources. 

When, finally, we come to the Heidelberg, we find 
that it is mainly taken from Ursinus' Shorter catechism. 
Our catechism is really only a revision of the Shorter. 
Ninety-nine of its answers are evidently taken from the 
Shorter, — that is, four-fifths of our catechism is directly 
or indirectly taken from the Shorter Ursinus. Outside 
of the references of the Heidelberg to the Smaller and 
Larger Ursinus, there are 7 answers that refer to the 
Strasburg catechism, 12 to Calvin, 13 to the Zurich and 

* Thus 42 and 120 are taken word for word from Melanc- 
thon, 59-61 are almost verbally from Calvin's answer 20, and 
125 is from the Emden (45). 





ft 

.■ ■■< 



mm 




The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Bohemian 
Language, see page 9. 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



20 to the Lasco catechisms. 

As we thus examine these three catechisms we are 
especially struck with the differences between the Larger 
Ursinus and the other two, not merely in the size, but 
in the subject matter. The idea of the covenant is promi- 
nent in the Larger. In the other two there is the same 
threefold division: i, Sin; 2, Redemption; 3, Thankful- 
ness. In passing from the Larger to the Smaller there 
is an entire change in the centre and the perspective of 
the catechism. It has been suggested that the threefold 
division of the Smaller and of the Heidelberg was the 
logical result of making the centre of the catechism to be 
the idea of comfort. 

But the better solution seems to be suggested by 
Lang and Reu, that Ursinus probably gained the idea 
from a sort of catechism, or better, a book of religious in- 
struction, published at Heidelberg in 1558, entitled, "A 
brief and orderly statement of the true doctrine of our 
holy Christian faith for house-fathers." It was pub- 
lished by John Khole, and was a re-publication of a 
catechetical work by Gallus, of Ratisbon, a few years 
before. This book perhaps made such an impression on 
Ursinus, between the time of the writing of his Larger 
and Smaller catechisms, that he changed the order of 
the catechism. He introduced its threefold division, but 
somewhat altered and improved. We have had the privi- 
lege of examining this catechism and copying it in Heidel- 
berg. Its three divisions are: 

1. The law, which included sin and penitence. 

2. The gospel or faith. 

3. Good works. 

This is nearly the same as the Heidelberg — 1, Sin; 2, 
Redemption; 3, Good Works. 

The first part of this little book is divided into four 



48 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



parts — original sin, actual sin, punishment of sin and 
the law as a schoolmaster to reveal our sin. 

The second part describes the work of Christ's re- 
demption and how we lay hold of it — namely, by faith. 
Faith comes by the preaching of the word and the use 
of the sacraments. The book is Lutheran on the sacra- 
ments, and like the Lutheran catechisms, includes con- 
fession with the sacraments. 

The third part speaks of good works as the fruit of 
faith, and then has a reference to the Christian's cross 
here, and his eternal joy hereafter. 

This threefold division Ursinus adopted, but he also 
improved on it. The first part, he does not like its name, 
"the law," for that is cold, but he names it "misery," 
which is concrete and reveals the result of breaking the 
law. The second part of the Heidelberg, which is on re- 
demption, is more like this book. And in the third, Ur- 
sinus adds to its "good works," the motive for them, — 
namely, "thankfulness." Indeed in the first, as well as in 
the third part, Ursinus, like Christ in the "Sermon on the 
Mount," goes down below the outward act to the inward 
motive. Thus, in the first part, he does not stop with the 
law, but he goes to the motive which leads to the break- 
ing of the law, — namely, hatred to God ; and in the third 
part, instead of good works, he gives the motive for 
them, — namely, thankfulness. 

In studying these three catechisms, it is important 
to notice two prominent doctrines in them — namely, the 
one on which Calvin and Melancthon differed, and the 
one on which they somewhat neared each other. The 
first is the doctrine of election, the second the doctrine 
of the Lord's Supper. 

On the doctrine of election Calvin and Melancthon 
differed. Melancthon held to synergism, while Calvin 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



held to monergism and election. One of the most notice- 
able peculiarities in this comparison of these three cate- 
chisms is the way in which the doctrine of election is 
treated. In the Larger catechism of Ursinus, election is 
frequently referred to. When one reads this Larger cate- 
chism there can be no question about Ursinus' Calvinism 
on election. Election is referred to in Question no, 
which asks "What is the sanctification of the elect?" 
In 113 the Church is said to be "the congregation of the 
elect." In 123 it says : "For whomsoever God has 
elected to eternal life." Answer 125 speaks of "the 
Church elected to eternal life." Answer 218 says: "We 
must not do so nor does any elect do so." In answer 
219 the question asks: 

"But since none are saved except God, who has, from 
eternity, elected to salvation, how can you believe that 
the promise of grace belongs to you, when you do not 
know that you are elect?" 

"Just because I embrace with true faith the grace of- 
fered me. From this most certain argument I know that 
I am elect by God to eternal life, and shall be kept for- 
ever. For if he had not elected me from eternity, he 
would never have given me the spirit of adoption." 

Election is, therefore, referred to in six answers. 

Let us now turn to the Smaller catechism and see 
what it has to say about election. Here we find it re- 
ferred to in eight answers. In answer 17, Ursinus speaks 
of God "upholding and governing all according to the 
eternal decree of his will." Answer 38 says, "he will de- 
liver me with all the elect." Answer 39 says : "the Holy 
Ghost is sent to the hearts of all the elect." Answer 40 
speaks of the Church as a "company elect unto ever- 
lasting life." Answer 43 says: "the body will live for- 
ever with him and all the elect." Answer 50 says : 

"Because God elected me to eternal life in Christ be- 

4 



5<D THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



fore the foundation of the world were laid, and has re- 
generated me by the special influence of the Holy Spirit. 
Otherwise such is the depravity of my nature that I, 
knowing and willing in my sins, may perish, as do the re- 
probate multitude." 
Answer 51 asks : 

"Does not this belief, which prompts you to declare 
that you have been elected to eternal life, free you from 
responsibility, and make you less devoted to the daily 
exercise of repentance?" 

"Not at all, but it kindles in me rather the desire for 
persevering and growing in piety. Since, without genu- 
ine conversion to God, I am not able to console myself 
with the assurance of my election; and the more sure 
I am of salvation the more anxious I am to show my 
gratitude to God." 

Answer 52 goes on to add : 

"But are you not troubled with doubts about your sal- 
vation when you are told that none are saved except the 
elect?" 

"Not in the least, for this strong consolation is espe- 
cially present to me in all temptations. For if, with a 
sincere affection of heart, I desire to trust and obey God. 
I ought to regard this as the surest proof that I belong 
to the number of those who have been elected to ever- 
lasting life, and therefore can never perish, no matter 
how weak my faith may be." 

From these answers it is very evident that Ursinus 
was not a Melancthonian, as Revs. Drs. Nevin, Schaff, 
Rupp and others in our Church have erroneously held. 
Ursinus shows here that not only was he a Calvinist, 
but that he held to the double predestination, for he 
speaks of it in the Smaller catechism, as answer 50 
shows. Indeed, he is stronger in his statements on elec- 
tion in these first two catechisms than is Calvin himself 
in his catechism, and is even more like Calvin's Institutes, 
than like Calvin's catechism. 



HChriftian 
CATECHISEM 

fuainter chcl vainufitoinlas 
BafcJgias da Heidelberg, 6c 
qmfi in tuots lous del 
Evangcli, 

Huoffa dan 'of vertieu in 7(u- 
maunjeh & cun bgers Ions 

d:Sa ScrittHT* pr/tv** 
tries 

CASPARUM FRITZUW 
da quaift temp Miniftcr del 

pted da Dreu in Sn niocdan, 

Cnn privilege da/Us i/tuft. Refer* 
mad as tr ah Lyas. 



Stampo in Scuol ttzs 
JACOB DORTA V. a i 
AnnoMVCLXXXVh 

The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Romansch 
language. See page 10. 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



51 



And just here the interesting question arises, why 
Ursinus, who expressed himself so strongly on elec- 
tion in his two previous catechisms, should say so little 
about it in the Heidelberg. Others have found the doc- 
trine of election in five or six places in our catechism, 
but we can find it mainly in three, — in answer 52 and 
answer 54, where the "elect" are spoken of, though the 
word in our translation is the word "chosen" instead of 
"elect." The other place is in answer 26, where the words 
"eternal cousel" occur, which, according to the sources of 
the answers as well as to Ursinus elsewhere, refer to 
God's eternal decree. Now why was the doctrine of elec- 
tion so modified in the Heidelberg? Gooszen suggests 
that it was due to Bullinger's influence, for he enlarges 
Bullinger's influence on catechism to a maximum. We be- 
lieve election was modified for two reasons : 

1. The doctrine of election was too profound and 
scholastic a doctrine for practical purposes, especially for 
the teaching of the youth. 

2. It was perhaps modified, at the suggestion of the 
Elector, as was done in the case of the Lord's Supper, so 
as not to give offense to the Lutherans of the Palatinate, 
who might make trouble when it came to the adoption 
of the catechism by the Church of the Palatinate. 
Yet enough of it is left in the catechism to show that 
election is part and parcel of the gospel, but on its posi- 
tive side and viewed as a comfort. For election can be 
viewed from two standpoints, from that of God's sover- 
eignty, and also from that of God's grace. It is the latter 
view that makes it a comfort, and it is this view that is 
incorporated in the catechism. 

The second doctrine that is interesting to study in 
these three catechisms is the Lord's Supper, especially 
that phase of it that relates to the way in which Christ's 



52 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



body is present in the sacrament. The Larger catechism 
of Ursinus (answer 300) reads thus: 

"Is to eat Christ merely to become partakers of the 
merits of Christ and the gifts of the Holy Spirit?" 

"It is not this alone, but also the communication of the 
person and substance of Christ himself, for his divine 
nature dwells in us, but his body is united with our 
bodies, so that we are one with him." 

This is pretty high doctrine, and would suit the Luth- 
erans, who emphasized the presence of the substance of 
Christ. Still that high phrase "substance of Christ" is 
somewhat equivocal and may have been for that reason 
used by Ursinus, for it is to be remembered that he 
had only just come to the College of Wisdom and had 
to be careful how far he departed from Lutheran ortho- 
doxy. He could use "the substance of Christ" and the 
Lutherans could give it a Lutheran meaning. And yet 
that phrase is given quite another meaning in Calvin's 
catechism, which, in answer 35, says : 

"If we will have the substance of the sacrament, we 
must lift up our hearts to heaven, where our Saviour 
Christ is in the glory of his Father, etc." 

Calvin thus put Christ's body in heaven, while the 
Lutherans, in using that phrase, put it in the Lord's 
Supper. 

Let us now turn to the Smaller catechism of Ursinus. 
Here we find (Answer 68) this peculiarly Lutheran 
phrase, "substance of Christ," left out, and we have 68: 

"But do the bread and wine become the real body of 
Christ?" 

"No, for Christ has only one real body, born of the 
Virgin Mary, crucified for us, dead, buried, risen again, 
ascended to heaven, and is now there at the right hand 
of God, but is not upon earth, until he comes again to 
judge the quick and dead." 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



53 



This question evidently brings up a new thought. It 
was directed against the new and rising doctrine of 
ubiquity among the high-Lutherans. And probably it was 
the fear of this new doctrine that caused the leaving out 
of the phrase "substance of Christ" in the Larger cate- 
chism. 

Let us now turn to the Heidelberg. There is a strong 
similarity between the Smaller and the Heidelberg, and 
yet there are one or two significant changes. In the Hei- 
delberg the idea of the sacrament, as a means of grace, 
is retained; but the idea of it, as a sign of duty (Pflicht- 
zeichen), and as producing obedience to Christ, is omitted. 
We can see why the first is retained, although it would be 
more offensive to the Lutherans, who held that the Lord's 
Supper was not only a means of grace, but grace itself. 
For the Lutheran doctrine was the immediate presence 
of Christ, the Reformed the mediate.* Why the other 
idea of the sacrament, as personal consecration, is left 
out, we know not, but perhaps it was because of the in- 
creasing emphasis in the Heidelberg in both the sacra- 
ments on the death of Christ. On the death of Christ 
the Heidelberg adds a new question not in either the 
Larger or Smaller, the 67th, in which it emphasizes the 
relation of the sacraments to the death of Christ. This 
emphasis on it, as a memorial, may have interfered with 
its reference to it as a duty. 

And when we come to compare the exact phrasing of 
the Heidelberg with the Shorter, we find it uses a peculiar 
phrase. It says "the bread is not changed into the very 
body of Christ, though agreeably to the nature and 

* Luther's Smaller catechism says the Lord's Supper is the 
true body and blood of Christ. It does not allow room for any 
means of grace, for it is grace itself. The Lord's Supper, as the 
Reformed held, brought not merely "the benefits of Christ's re- 
demption," but the redemption itself. 



54 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



properties of sacraments it is called the body of Christ." 

"The Heidelberg (78) is here not quite so clear as 
its predecessor, the Shorter, for its phrase, 'according 
to the nature and properties of sacraments,' is a more 
general statement than the Shorter, and also somewhat 
equivocal." 

The Shorter (65) asks: 

" What is it to eat of Christ's body and drink of his 
blood?" 

"It is by true faith in Christ to receive from God the 
forgiveness of sins and the gift of righteousness, on ac- 
count of the sacrifice of Christ's body and the shedding of 
his blood. It is also, through the Holy Spirit dwelling at 
the same time in Christ's body (which is and remains in 
heaven) and in us (who are upon the earth) to be united 
to Christ our Lord so that we are bone of his bone and 
flesh of his flesh; and so having one and the same spirit 
(even as the members of my body have one and the same 
life) we live and reign with him." 

A high sacramentarian could put a high meaning into 
what was meant by "the property of sacraments," and a 
low sacramentarian could put a low significance into it. 
We wonder whether this somewhat indefinite phrase was 
not put into the catechism intentionally, so that those of 
divergent views in the Palatinate might be satisfied by a 
general phrase ; when they might have gotten into a con- 
troversy over a more definite statement. We can, how- 
ever, easily understand what it means by seeing how 
Ursinus explains it in his Smaller catechism, that he 
does not mean that Christ's humanity is on earth, but 
in heaven, as indeed answers 47 and 76 of our cate- 
chism say. 

The doctrine of the sacraments all through the cate- 
chism is Calvinistic, as the Larger catechism (301) more 
clearly states it: 

"The Holy Spirit, as an intermediate bond holds us 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



and Christ together, holding bodies distant from one 
another by the greatest interval much better and more 
firmly, just as the body is joined together with the head, or 
grapes with a vine." 

While we are thus making comparisons between these 
three catechisms we might also pause to note another 
fact, which, however, does not concern Ursinus but his 
co-laborer, Olevianus. There are some things in the Hei- 
delberg that are not in the Smaller Ursinus, and, there- 
fore, probably come from Olevianus. There have been 
a number of attempts to show what part of the Heidel- 
berg belongs to Ursinus and what part to Olevianus. But 
they have generally been mere guesses. Thus we notice 
the recent statement that Ursinus gave the Latin body 
of the catechism, and Olevianus contributed the beautiful 
German style. There is absolutely no reason for this. 
Olevianus was not a better German scholar than Ursinus, 
for the latter was also a German by birth. Indeed one 
of the best writers on the history of the catechism, Gillet, 
in his "Crato of Crafftheim," praises the fine German 
style of Ursinus. On the other hand, Olevianus was also 
a Latin scholar as well as Ursinus, for there are several 
published works by him in Latin, as his Dialectics, etc. 

But while these guesses are without foundation, we 
now come to something in the Heidelberg catechism that 
is probably contributed by Olevianus, because it is in 
neither of the Ursinus' catechisms. This is the section 
in the Heidelberg about Church discipline. For it is to 
be remembered that at that time there were parts of the 
Church, which held with Calvin, that the Church itself 
had the right to discipline its members. On the other 
hand, there was the view of the Zurich Church, that the 
Church could only admonish its members, but that Church 
discipline belonged to the state. This latter view has been 



56 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



called Erastian (after Professor Erastus at Heidelberg), 
especially as a controversy about it broke out later at 
Heidelberg and greatly divided the Church. In this con- 
troversy Olevianus led the Calvinists, and Erastus the 
Zurich party, and was one of the first to fall under the 
ban of Calvinistic church discipline by being himself ex- 
communicated. Now, what was Ursinus' view of church 
discipline. We can easily see what it was when the Hei- 
delberg was written, by comparing his catechisms with 
the Heidelberg. The Smaller catechism has nothing on 
church discipline, but the Larger has. In the Larger, at 
the end, is a section containing three long answers on 
church discipline. In this Ursinus sympathized with the 
Calvinistic position, for in it he gives the Church the 
right to admonish unworthy members, though he also 
carefully defines the rights of the state. Like Calvin, he 
did not hold to the absolute separation of Church and 
state, but to their alliance, and he gave to each its sphere. 
It is somewhat remarkable that after having come so 
recently from Zurich he should take the other side. Later, 
when the controversy raged at Heidelberg about this Cal- 
vinistic Church government, Ursinus comes out squarely 
on the Calvinistic side. Erastus then wrote to Bullinger : 
"Ursinus rages; he is foolish." The theses of Ursinus 
for the Calvinistic form of government are given in his 
commentary on the catechism under answer 85. The 
Heidelberg catechism is Calvinistic in church govern- 
ment, and in the later controversy on church discipline 
its statement was used as an argument. And because of 
it Elector Frederick finally decided the controversy in 
favor of Olevianus and the Calvinists. 

There may also be noted a second thing in this com- 
parison between the two catechisms of Ursinus and the 
Heidelberg. Another statement, in regard to the share 



RINGKAS AN 

PENGADJARAN 

AGAMR ORANG KRISTEN 

DENGAN 

PENGATOERAN GREDJA. 

TERSALIN 
OLIH 

R AKKERMAN. 



Tertjitak 
olih 

J. M. Chs. NIJLAND 
di 

SOERABAIil. 



The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Malay 
language in Latin letters. See page 12. 




The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Malay 
language in Arabic letters. See page 12. 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



57 



of each author, has been that Ursinus gave the thought 
and the doctrine to the catechism; Olevianus its devo- 
tional character. But there is also no reason for so bald 
a statement as this. Olevianus was a theological thinker 
as well as Ursinus. For both before and after the pub- 
lication of the Heidelberg, he was professor of dogmatics, 
before at Heidelberg, after at Herborn. Nor is it true 
that Ursinus did not reveal the devotional in his writings. 
His earliest writings, more especially his inaugural ad- 
dress at Breslau (1558), are full of religious earnestness. 
So are his private letters. And this is by no means want- 
ing in his two catechisms — the Larger and the Smaller. 
That he, later in life, became more scholastic is undeni- 
able. His controversies, his continued ill-health, his 
natural inclination toward pessimism all contributed to 
this. But when he wrote the Heidelberg he was full of 
the warmth of youthful faith. And yet, while this is 
true, this devotional experimental character is consider- 
ably stronger in the Heidelberg than in Ursinus' two 
previous catechisms. More of the questions and answers 
in the Heidelberg are in the first and second person 
singular. Perhaps one of the most notable differences 
is in the Lord's Prayer. For in the Heidelberg these 
answers are in the form of prayers. Why? That the 
catechumen might pray these answers on his knees. The 
catechism thus became a liturgy, an act of worship. Now 
all this would seem to show that there was a grain of 
truth in the thought that Olevianus helped to make the 
catechism even more devotional than either of Ursinus' 
previous catechisms were. But it is not true that he gave 
all that was devotional to it, for Ursinus also revealed 
the devotional, which was never swallowed up by the 
merely intellectual 



58 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



(b) comparison of the: heudexberg with previous 
catejchisms 

We have thus far been using the forward method in 
our historical examination of this subject, going from 
the previous catechisms to the Heidelberg. Let us re- 
verse this process and go backward from the Heidelberg 
to the catechisms before it. We have already called at- 
tention to the fact that the Heidelberg was indebted to 
the Strasburg, Zurich, Genevan and Lasco catechisms. 
Before we take them up let us pause for a moment on a 
catechism to which attention has not as yet been directed 
— namely, the catechism of Brenz. 

Brenz had been the great reformer of southern Ger- 
many and had been low-Lutheran, though late in life he 
became high-Lutheran. He early published two cate- 
chisms — a Larger and a Smaller, which are mildly 
Lutheran. It is with the latter that we have here to do, 
because it was the official catechism of the Palatinate 
when Ursinus came there, having been incorporated in 
the Church-Order of Elector Otto Henry of 1556. It 
was, therefore, used all over the Palatinate before the 
Heidelberg was published. It, therefore, must have come 
under the notice of Ursinus. Indeed, it is a wonder that 
when he first began his catechetical lectures at Heidel- 
berg soon after he arrived, he did not use this cate- 
chism as a basis, for it was the official catechism of the 
Church of the Palatinate. Yet he did not. Perhaps 
this was because it was entirely too simple and too brief, 
for it consists of only eighteen answers, — namely the 
creed, the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer, — 
with an additional answer on the first and two additional 
answers at the end of the Ten Commandments. This was 
followed by two answers on the Lord's Supper and one 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



on the power of the keys. There may also have been 
another reason why Ursinus did not use Brenz' cate- 
chism. He had already in his theological views gotten 
far beyond Brenz' catechism. That was Lutheran and 
agreed with the Unaltered Augsburg Confession in say- 
ing that "Christ reaches out to us his body and blood with 
the bread and wine." Ursinus had gotten beyond that, 
over to the Reformed position, as is shown by his Larger 
catechism. The catechism of Brenz is peculiar in being 
a sacramental catechism. It is framed in the sacraments. 
It begins and ends with a sacrament; with the creed, 
Lord's Prayer and the decalogue thrown in between. Ur- 
sinus, therefore, in beginning his lectures to his students 
in the college of Wisdom soon after his arrival, went to 
work to frame up his own catechism, as Brenz' cate- 
chism was unsatisfactory. And the product of his work 
was his Larger catechism. 

And yet while he did not seem to use Brenz' cate- 
chism in his lectures there are several answers in Brenz 
that remind us somewhat of the Heidelberg. For it is 
to be remembered that Ursinus, just at that time, was on 
the alert for any catechetical suggestions to help him in 
lecturing to his students in the theological seminary. 
He not merely made use of his previous catechetical 
knowledge, but from every quarter available he was 
gathering material to be woven into his catechism. There 
are especially two answers, the one after the creed and 
the one after the Ten Commandments, that remind us 
somewhat of the Heidelberg. The answer after the creed 
reads thus: 

"Of what profit is this faith?" 

"That for the sake of Jesus Christ I am counted 
righteous and holy before God, and there is given me the 
spirit of prayer and calling on God as Father, and also 
of ordering my life according to God's commandment." 



6o THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



The Heidelberg (59), at the end of the creed, thus 
reads : 

''But what doth it profit thee that thou believest all 
this That I am righteous in Christ before God, and an 
heir of eternal life?" 

The first part of this answer is about the same as 
Brenz's. The answer of Brenz, after the Ten Command- 
ments, is : 

"For what purpose were the Ten Commandments 
given ?" 

"First, that we may learn from them to recognize our 
sins, and, secondly, what works are pleasing to God and 
are to be done in order to lead an honorable life." 

Listen to what the Heidelberg (115) says and see 
the parallel: 

"Why, then, will God have the Ten Commandments 
so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep 

them?" 

"First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and 
more to know our sinful nature, likewise that we con- 
stantly endeavor and pray to God for the grace of the 
Holy Spirit that we may become more and more conform- 
able to the image of God" 

Brenz then goes on in the next answer about good 
works, which is significant: 

"Can we, by our works, perfectly fulfill God's com- 
mandment ?" 

"No. If, therefore, we believe in Jesus Christ, God, 
with his gracious favor, for Christ's sake, reckons us 
just as though we ourselves had fulfilled all of God's 
commands." 

The Heidelberg, in Answer 60, clearly states the same 
idea : 

"God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere 
grace, grants and imparts to me the perfect satisfaction, 
righteousness and holiness of Christ, even so as if I never 
had had nor committed any sin, yea, as if I had fully 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 61 

accomplished all that obedience which Christ hath accom- 
plished for me." 

The two catechisms somewhat parallel each other on 
"good works." 

Brenz' catechism asks: 

"Why ought we to do good works?" 

Not that by our works we make satisfaction for sin 
and merit life eternal. For Christ alone hath made satis- 
faction for our sins and merited for us life eternal. But 
we should do good works that by them we may attest our 
faith and render thanks to our God for his benefits." 

The Heidelberg (91) asks: 

"What are good works?" 

"Only those which proceed from a true faith, one 
performed according to the law of God and to His glory, 
and not such as are founded on our imaginations or the 
institutions of men." 

But there is an additional idea that the Heidelberg 
got from this answer of Brenz. We have already seen 
that Ursinus probably received the threefold idea of the 
catechism from a theological treatise published at Heidel- 
berg. But the third part of that catechism was named 
good works. Ursinus changed it to thankfulness. Where 
did he get the idea of good works as thankfulness? We 
know not. And yet it is significant that here in this 
answer of Brenz it speaks of good works as "thanks 
to God for his benefits." Perhaps Ursinus got from 
Brenz the idea of thankfulness, which makes the latter 
part of our catechism so beautiful, thus making the 
Christian life a thank-offering to God.* 

But the contrast between Brenz' catechism and the 
Heidelberg is as interesting as the likeness. Catechisms 

* Had we time, we would also like to compare the Heidel- 
berg with the "Articles on the Creed" by Peter Martyr, who 
was Ursinus' favorite teacher at Zurich before he came to 
Heidelberg. 



62 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



are of different sorts in their contents. Some are chrono- 
logical — that is, begin with the creation and fall of man, 
and follow it historically. Others are cosmological, mak- 
ing the decree of God in relation to man and the uni- 
verse, their keynote. Others are sacramental, — they begin 
with baptism. Brenz was of this kind. After an intro- 
ductory question about religion it starts in the second 
answer by taking up baptism. The Heidelberg is quite 
different. It begins with the idea of comfort, and is, 
therefore, experimental. 

And now, having paused for a moment on a Lutheran 
catechism, let us take up especially the Reformed cate- 
chisms that were the sources of the Heidelberg. And 
to do this most effectively let us take up the peculiarities 
predominant in the Heidelberg and trace them back. 

The first and one of the greatest is the idea that the 
Heidelberg gives of religion at its very beginning — 
namely, that religion is a comfort. This is the antipodes 
of the Catholic teaching of religion, which makes religion 
to be fear. And so over the doorway of every Catholic 
cathedral is carved in stone a picture of the Last Judg- 
ment. But over the doorway of the Heidelberg is carved 
the word "comfort." It, more than any other catechism, 
gives a cheerful aspect to religion. A true Reformed 
can never be a pessimist — he must be an optimist. Ur- 
sinus, with his natural bent toward melancholy, is always 
combating it with Christian optimism. This is beauti- 
fully shown by his letters. It is remarkable that one so 
much inclined to pessimism has given us what may be 
called the most optimistic of catechisms. Ah, it was be- 
cause the catechism was the expression of his deepest 
spiritual struggles. The Heidelberg catechism is an ex- 
perimental catechism, because Ursinus and Olevianus 
wrote their own experience into it. We are surprised that 



II aji ajj^ (t\ji (i/n am (&i ^ (t dJl s 



| (U| nn ji dm iui (K) (u «ii (U m tkii W| \ 

1. | OJfl M K¥t !U1 <U1 !U 1R IS?1 iKi LI tH IJJ (M 2 ^ Tl ^(Kl ^ IVVl ^ 

| (uti Kmm «jin iw -ji |n !UjKij nnMo^o^i^w^tjCTJMiui-diiij'Ki^^ Kinnj\«um 

o a o a o . o a a 
Km OKmCTKT|i (uiirki^oiaajiniirifVJi'nji ki ik ^ 01 in Knnn iaji Kjjj OKij inn«|ici 

a - b <x a i a c 

ij m am an \&m (ui uu g>wn| w»oao^(W3ik^ffi|.!n^a^ i , io_AO<fl KTjinjiaLjmKm 

O Q O Q 00 

o a o a . a 

i^(M.iiJW2'Ki-(ri'ki^a.i'Ki).jr:> ajifi^io 2 (Ki v^ian (kit/iki Yi^ajnuj Ki~/mKm tummx 

■KTHSYi itn an u °i Knirui (WKm im Km » ojn (U>.?i njikitw kio wctivjh Man.i^ 
t 

a . a o o o / 

in ui w inn mow. 1 :Kd_a in 11 ki 2 an *n ism riji q oi 2 km ki -A>yin (in -Ji ki ? an irei l~i 
^Kfj ^ S jbu TJlCCJWij I misuS ^ 

o / a a q <x / a a / g a 

tum^Ti(kiMiiirK.in^\ Km ik ui (M Km Km (uiKiajj KroK^annajmafwinji Meionji^irinanj 

a. o-o . q o < 

1 xji a ji an ? ui 1 wn arm mm 10 w. 10 Km ki Kin .Km- ki j 

a O/o a r> o' a. a 

ki inn \ Km « iji urn iki 1 ui ? ta iti oji km n ; turn o >;!iu jutji Km wan urn ion on o -it (ki ism 
K 3 CJ V ^ J*3CA J J J hL 

00 . . ;?>• / o q 



■ri fnKm-JmKiiiin^iaaoafTitM'ism Km m w m 2 (kd -* mn ki ki anoaan Km onnn an 

a ... / q a a .0. 

nn ? asm. 0 an ie 1 in a jf fJi asv 1 an Km a* ki ui »< 1 an Km irm uta in an ay 2 in arm 2 cum aeji ki » 



The first question and answer of the Heidelberg catechism 
the Javanese language. See page 12. 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 63 



they were able to write so great a catechism at so young 
an age, their ages being 26 and 28. We may be glad 
they wrote it then and not later in their lives, for it 
would then have been more didactic and cold, like the 
Westminster catechism. But written in their youth, it 
is full of youthful aspirations and buoyant earnestness. 
Neither could they have written a catechism of such a 
spirit later in their lives. It is the catechism of youth, 
and that is what gives it eternal youth. 

Well how does this prominence of comfort in religion 
get into the Heidelberg? It is very interesting to trace it 
back. There is a hint of it away back in Leo Juda's 
Shorter catechism (answer 73), where religion is de- 
scribed as a joy. But the idea of comfort does not come 
out prominently until in the Lasco group of catechisms. 

In the first catechism of that group, the Lasco cate- 
chism (1546), which, as a manuscript, was first used 
among the Reformed Churches of East Friesland in Ger- 
many and later published in 1551 in London, this idea 
begins to appear. In its answer 125, referring to the 
Lord's Prayer, the question asks what comfort does the 
word "Father" have in it? The answer replies: "A 
very special comfort in life and death." Here you have 
exactly the wording of the first question of the Heidel- 
berg. Again in that catechism, question 127 asks what 
comfort does it bring us that God is Almighty? 

Another catechism of this group was published in 
London in 1553 for the refugee church there, of which 
Lasco was the pastor. They had had a catechism of 
their own, made by Micronius, Lasco's assistant. The 
Micronius' catechism was an abbreviation of Lasco's cate- 
chism, but they needed a still shorter catechism, intended 
especially for those about to join Church. So this Shorter 
London catechism was published. In it, question 23, 



64 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



referring to the articles of the creed (the communion of 
saints, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body and 
eternal life), asks: What comfort is given by these? 
And the answer then proceeds to give three comforts 
derived from them. This idea of comfort is repeated in 
Question 34, where, referring to the Lord's Supper, it 
asks : What comfort have you in it ? 

The Emden catechism was the fourth of this group of 
Lasco's catechisms, published in 1554 by the pastors of 
the city of Emden, in Germany, where Lasco had, eight 
years before, introduced his first catechism, then in 
manuscript (of which we spoke above). This Emden 
catechism is the last of the Lasco group of catechisms, 
and is based on the three others. In its 24th question the 
idea of comfort appears as it asks : Where shall this 
poor man, condemned man, made fearful by the law, 
seek comfort? The reply is "Not in himself, but in 
Christ." Indeed this answer is somewhat like the be- 
ginning of our first answer so that we will give it in full : 

"Not in himself, or in any other work in heaven or 
earth, but alone through faith in the only mediator and 
Saviour Jesus Christ, who has revealed to us the doctrine 
of the Holy Gospel, by which God urges and impels us by 
that law as by a schoolmaster." 

These answers of these different catechisms reveal 
that the idea of religion, as a comfort, was becoming 
more prominent just before Ursinus wrote his catechisms. 
And this idea Ursinus seized upon for the beginning of 
our catechism. These refugees of Lasco's Church had 
been driven out of England by the persecution under 
bloody Queen Mary. They had fled to Denmark and 
then to north Germany for a refuge. But the high- 
Lutherans of those regions had driven them away. They 
at last, for a few years, found a resting-place at Frank- 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 65 



ford. But the Lutherans soon drove them away from 
there. Then it was that Elector Frederick III, of the 
Palatinate, gave them an asylum, and they settled at 
Frankenthal, not far from Heidelberg, in the spring of 
1562, forming a large congregation.* It was this congre- 
gation that brought with them from London these Lasco 
catechisms. And so Ursinus and Olevianus came into 
contact with them and utilized them in writing the Hei- 
delberg. This idea of comfort appears in Ursinus' first 
and Larger catechism, which begins thus (and you can 
now see how our beautiful first answer grew) : 

"What firm comfort do you have in life and death?" 
"That I am formed of God according to his image." 
Ursinus then goes on to base this comfort on the 
covenant of God as he continues : 

"And after I had lost this image willingly in Adam, 
God, out of his infinite and free mercy, received me into 
the covenant of his grace, in order that he, on account 
of the obedience and death of his Son, sent unto us in 
the flesh, may give to me, a believer, justice and eternal 
life ; and this covenant he had sealed in my heart through 
his spirit, re-forming me in accordance with the image of 
God and calling me 'Abba Father,' through his Word 
and the visible sign of the covenant." 

Let us follow this first answer of our catechism one 
step farther to the second or Smaller catechism of Ur- 
sinus. There we see it is exactly like the first part of 
our answer though briefer : 

"What is your comfort by which in life and death 
your heart sustains itself?" 

"That God, for Christ's sake, has truly forgiven my 
sins and given me eternal life, that in it I may glorify 

* The story of the sufferings of these Reformed refugees 
had long stirred the heart of Ursinus. Even in his university- 
days at Wittenberg he refers to them in his letters, as he also 
does in his Inaugural Address, at Breslau, 1558. 

5 



66 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



him forever." 

The ending of this is like the ending of our sixth 
answer. Then our Heidelberg catechism completes these 
two answers of Ursinus' catechisms by agreeing with the 
Smaller catechism in accepting the idea of comfort rather 
than that of covenant in the Larger. But it adds to the 
answer in the Smaller the reasons for our comfort, four 
in number — first, redemption ("that Christ has fully sat- 
isfied for all my sins") ; second, deliverance ("and de- 
livered me from the power of the devil") ; third, preserva- 
tion ("so preserves me that not a hair can fall from my 
head") ; fourth, assurance ("he also assures me of eternal 
life"). 

It was Ursinus who seized on this idea of religion as 
a comfort before Olevianus became his helper in pre- 
paring the catechism, for he uses this idea in his Smaller 
catechism. It is interesting to notice that Ursinus, four 
years before he aided in the composition of the Hei- 
delberg, refers to this idea in his Inaugural Address at 
the school at Breslau. He there says : "Let us rather, 
with all submission and thankfulness, embrace this sweet- 
est comfort by which we are assured that our labors please 
God." He also, in that address, speaks of the three tests 
of the Christian and calls the third "this comfort that, for 
the differences and inequalities of gifts and degrees, we 
shall not be cast off and suffered to perish, which comfort 
must be opposed to the grief conceived upon our own 
unworthiness." 

In a number of other answers the influence of these 
Lasco catechisms is evident, but time fails to note them, 
except to call attention to the influence of the catechism 
by Lasco, on the form of the answers in the Heidelberg 
on the Lord's Prayer (122-129). In them there are occa- 
sional sentences taken from Lasco's, but the similarity 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 67 



does not lie in the words, but in the form. The form of 
them is that each answer is a prayer. This is a beautiful 
idea. The catechism not merely teaches us what prayer 
is, but it makes us pray. These answers on prayer, when 
taken singly or together, make a beautiful prayer. It 
is well, when studying them, to get the catechetical class 
to pray them together in concert. For they are the 
Heidelberg version of the Lord's Prayer. They remind 
us of Elector Frederick Ill's version of the Lord's Prayer, 
to which we shall refer in the chapter on "How Elector 
Frederick III Became Reformed." 

And as we have watched the influence of the Lasco 
group of catechisms, to which about twenty of the answers 
or about one-sixth of our catechism refer, so too we 
might also watch the influence of the other catechisms. 
Next to the Lasco catechisms come the Zurich group of 
catechisms, especially Leo Juda's Smaller catechism. 
Their influence is shown in 14 answers; as Juda, in 21, 
25, 27, 45, 56, 60, 86, 91, 117, 127, and Bullinger, in 80, 
91, 102. After the Zurich catechisms comes Calvin's cate- 
chism, with twelve of the answers of the Heidelberg re- 
ferring to it, as 30, 31, 32, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 88, 108, 
109 and no. And some of the answers have also a like- 
ness to Calvin's Institutes, as 26-28. The Strasburg cate- 
chisms of Bucer and Zell reveal themselves in seven 
answers ; Bucer in 27, 104, 106, 129, and Zell in 2, 52, 94, 
120, 128. Some almost unknown catechisms reveal their 
influence, especially a Bavarian catechism by Meckhart 
(1553), to which five answers refer. Indeed, one of the 
answers of the Heidelberg, the 26th on Providence, to- 
gether with three of Ursinus' Smaller catechism (39, 40, 
41) go back to what may be called the earliest of the 
Protestant catechisms, — Bader's Dialogue-book of 1526. 
We give it here and then give answer 26. Bader says : 



68 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



The first article of the creed has the meaning "that I 
believe and am certain in my heart that the only eternal 
and Almighty God, who has created heaven and earth, 
is my friendly, propitious and beloved father, and / am 
his chosen child, beloved as his own heart." Our answer 
26 reads : "That the eternal father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ (who, of nothing made heaven and earth, who 
likewise upholds and governs the same by his eternal 
counsel and providence) is, for the sake of God, his Son, 
my God and my Father.'' We shall also, in the next 
chapter, refer to another hitherto unknown source of our 
catechism. But time fails to dwell any longer on these 
details. We refer the reader to the works of Gooszen 
and Lang on the Heidelberg catechism for fuller details. 

3. Topical. — Let us, before closing, turn to indi- 
vidual answers in the Heidelberg and see them grow. 
Let us begin at the beginning of our catechism and take 
up some of its prominent answers. 

The first question and answer is always interesting, 
where did it come from ? We have already noticed in this 
chapter where the idea of comfort in the question came 
from. Concerning the answer, perhaps the best descrip- 
tion of it is that the first and last part came from the 
Lasco group of catechisms and the middle part was filled 
out by the authors of the catechism. And yet the analysis 
may be better made than that. That answer consists of 
a proposition : "that I am not my own, but belong to 
Christ." This is followed by four reasons to prove it, 
satisfaction, deliverance, preservation and assurance. The 
first of the reasons (the satisfaction of Christ) is taken 
from the first answer of the London, which says : "who 
hath cleansed me and the holy offering of His body and 
the shedding of His blood for my sins," and from the 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 69 

second answer of the Emden catechism : "that I am again 
saved from sin and death by the satisfaction of Christ 
Jesus." The last reason (assurance), is from the London 
catechism, answer 1, and the Emden, answer 3, both of 
which speak of the Holy Ghost making us willing to 
serve him. We give here the answer of the London, 
answer 3 : 

"How are you assured that you are a true Christian ?" 

"First, by the witness of the Holy Spirit, who, by 
faith in my high priest Jesus Christ, testifies to my Spirit, 
that I am a child of God, and, secondly, by the inclina- 
tion and desire to serve God, which, by the Spirit of God, 
I feel in the inward man." 

The question has been asked, where does the very 
first idea of the first answer come from, "that I am not 
my own, but belong to my faithful Saviour." It is un- 
doubtedly Biblical, but seems not to have been used much 
in the catechisms. Prof. Lang calls attention to its use 
in a Bavarian catechism of Huber, of 1543, which speaks 
of "Christ my Saviour and head, and I his member and 
property." out of which originally this answer in our 
catechism after twenty years may be said to have grown. 
But while a number of the ideas of this answer existed 
in other catechisms, yet with what remarkable genius did 
the authors of our catechism put them together and fill 
in between them the missing parts until the whole answer 
becomes a beautiful, complete whole. 

Another answer that has always been prominent and 
dear to readers of the Heidelberg has been the answer 
about faith, the 21st. 

"True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I 
hold for truth all that God has revealed in his Word, 
but also an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost 
works by the gospel in my heart, that not only to others, 
but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteous and 
salvation are freely given, merely of grace, only for the 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



sake of Christ's merits." 

Following this backward, in Ursinus' Smaller cate- 
chism, it reads : 

"Faith is a strong assent, by which we accept all that 
is revealed to us in the Word of God; and a sure confi- 
dence created by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of God's 
elect, whereby each one feels assured that, through the 
merits of Christ alone, remission of sins, righteousness 
and eternal life are freely given by God, only for the 
merits of Christ." 

Going still further back to Ursinus' Larger catechism, 
it there reads : 

"Faith is a firm assent to every Word of God, and 
a firm confidence, by which every one holds that forgive- 
ness of sin, righteousness and eternal life are given him 
by God, freely, on account of the merits of Christ; and 
through confidence is an illumination in the hearts of 
the elect by the Holy Spirit, making us living members 
of Christ and producing in us true love of God and 
prayer." 

All these answers are very much alike, but when we 
go beyond the catechisms of Ursinus, where does Answer 
21 come from? Away back in Leo Juda's catechism of 
1534, the germ of it appears where he says: "Faith is a 
knowledge of God and a confidence and a gift of God." 
In his next catechism, of 1538, he says: "Faith is a cer- 
tain trust and firm confidence in the true living God." 
Calvin (1541) speaks of faith as "a sure knowledge and 
sure confidence." We will, in the next chapter, show 
that this idea first came to Ursinus when he studied the 
catechism of his boyhood by Moibanus. As he later 
studied these other catechisms and found this idea en- 
forced again and again, he put it in our catechism as the 
basis of this 21st answer. In fact, he found a good deal 
of his answer in Micronius' catechism (1552), answer 44. 

"Faith is a fixed and firm confidence in God, awakened 



r 



C ATFCHISMO, 

Que fignifica, 
FORMA DE INSTRU£A5, 

que fe enfina em as 

ESCHOLAS E IGREJAS 
REFORM ADAS 

Conforme « Palavra de Deos , pofto por Perguntas 
e Repoftas lobre os principios da doutrina 
Chritfaa. 




Voor Corneltt Janft, Boeckverkooptt | 360 de 

Nit.iweKerck, inCaivinus, 166/ 



The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Portuguese 
language (first edition.) See pages 12-13. 



OATECHISMO, 

Que fignifica, 
FORMA DE INSTRUCAO, 

que fe enfina em as 

ESCHOLAS E IGREJAS 
REFORMADAS 

Conforme a Palavra de Dcos , pofto por 




For ordcmdos Srs. Direitores da Qompanja Oriental > 
Em AMSTERDAM, 

Emcafados Erdciros dePauIus MatthyCs. , 1 6S9. 



The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Portuguese 
language (second edition). See pages 12-13. 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



71 



in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, that he is our gracious 
Father, only by the will of Jesus Christ his son." 

And there is a phrase in our answer, "not only 
to others, but to me also," that Prof. Lang finds in 
Melancthon. 

Let us take another prominent subject, the answers 
on providence (26-28). In answer 26, the phrase "the 
eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who of nothing 
made heaven and earth, who likewise uphold and governs 
the same," goes away back to Leo Juda's first catechism 
(1534). The latter part of that answer, which says: 
"he is able to do it, being Almighty God, and willing, 
being a faithful Father," harks back to the London cate- 
chism (12), where it says: 

"I place all my confidence in the eternal God, assured 
that he will stand by me in all the need of my soul and 
body, for he is an Almighty God, and to me a willing 
Father." 

The catechism of Micronius (48) is very much like 
this: 

"I believe that the eternal God is my God and Father, 
who is the creator, upholder and ruler of heaven and 
earth, and all that in them is. In whom alone I put 
my confidence, assured that he is able to help me, and 
also will, seeing that he is Almighty, and thereto my 
Father." 

The authors of our catechism had simply to enlarge 
these thoughts in order to produce the 26th answer of 
our catechism. But when we come to the 27th, we are 
somewhat surprised to find that the concrete part of that 
answer, "so that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruit- 
ful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, 
riches and poverty, yea, all things come not by chance, 
but by His fatherly hand," is taken from Calvin's cate- 
chism, Answer 27, which says : 



7 2 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



"It is he that sendeth rain and drought, hail, tempest 
and fair weather, fertility and barrenness, dearth and 
plenty, health and sickness, and to be short, he hath all 
things at commandment to do him service at his own 
good pleasure." 

Prof. Lang thinks that these three answers, 26, 27 and 
28, remind one of what Calvin says in the first edition 
of his Institutes (1536), volume 1, page 63. 

Answer 31, "Why is He called Christ, that is 
anointed?" where Christ is spoken of as our prophet, 
priest and king, goes away back to Leo Juda (1534), who 
speaks of Him as king and priest. Then Calvin adds the 
office of prophet, in which he is followed by Bullinger in 
his Latin catechism. These Ursinus enlarged in his 
Larger catechism into five answers and they are almost 
like our catechism. His Smaller catechism unites these 
different answers into one, which is almost verbally copied 
in our catechism. Our catechism always inclining, as it 
does, to emphasize the personal, adds to this answer of the 
Smaller, the beautiful 32d answer, "Why art thou called 
a Christian?" which seems to be original. Prof. Lang, 
it is true, says that in answer 32 he finds a source in 
answer 64 of Ursinus' Larger catechism, but it is only 
in one clause, "reigning with Him eternally." He also 
quotes Calvin's answer 22 as a source, but we see no 
likeness. This answer, however, is interesting in its 
balancing of the passive and active life of the Chris- 
tian. It emphasizes the strenuous life when it says : "That 
so I may confess His name, — I may fight against sin and 
Satan in this life." This sounds like Olevianus, who had 
just done this at Treves before he wrote our catechism, 
as we shall describe in a later chapter. And yet this de- 
mand for the strenuous life is balanced by the emphasis 
on the self-denying life as it says : "a living sacrifice" ; 




The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Singalese 
language. The Coat of Arms of the Dutch East India Company 
is in the center. See page 13. 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



and he connects this with one of his main ideas in the 
catechism by adding "of thankfulness to Him." The 
previous lives of both the writers of the catechism, with 
their struggles, disappointments and persecutions, are 
written into our catechism and find expression in this 
answer. 

Our answer 54, on "what is the Church," has an in- 
teresting history. The first Protestant definition of the 
Church was given by Bucer and Calvin, "a congregation 
elect to eternal life." Leo Juda's gave it as "a gathering 
of believers elect to eternal life." This gives us only the 
first part of our answer, which says : 

"That the Son of God, from the beginning to the end 
of the world, gathers, defends and preserves to Himself 
out of the whole human race a Church elect to ever- 
lasting life agreeing in true faith." 

But the beautiful ending of our answer, "and that I 
am and forever shall remain a living member thereof." 
Where does it come from ? It has remained for the Lasco 
catechisms, so full of devotion, to put it in the London 
(21) and Micronius (67). Both add to the answer about 
the Church the clause, "of which I know myself to be a 
member." 

The Emden is virtually the same as our catechism : 

"I believe that my Lord Jesus Christ, out of this lost 
world by the Holy Spirit and by the voice of the Holy 
Gospel, has, from the beginning of the world, gathered 
and preserved an eternal, holy, continuing Church or 
congregation of the elect, of which congregation I recog- 
nize myself as a member." 

During the liturgical controversy in our Church 
nearly fifty years ago, a sharp controversy arose between 
the high-churchmen and the low-churchmen, as to the 
exact meaning of the word "Church" in our catechism. 
Rev. Prof H. Rust, for the low-churchmen claimed it 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



meant "congregation;" Rev. Prof. E. V. Gerhart denied 
this and claimed that it meant more than the congregation, 
for he emphasized the priesthood of the ministry. Rust 
declared that the German word used in answer 74 for 
church, is "congregation" (gemeinde) ; and also that 
answer 54 defines the church as a "congregation" 
(gemeinde). The literary sources of our catechism 
prove that the low-churchmen were right in their conten- 
tion. For the Lasco catechisms, which were the main 
source of that answer, all use "congregation" or "as- 
sembly." 

When we come to the sacraments we come to a very 
interesting history. Our catechism defines the sacraments 
as "holy, visible signs and seals." Where does that 
definition come from? The Catholic doctrine had been 
that they were saving ordinances, the Protestant, that 
they were sealing ordinances. Plow did the Reformed 
formulate their new doctrine that they were sealing, 
rather than saving? Here a very interesting history ap- 
pears in connection with the catechisms. Leo Juda, in his 
first catechism, speaks of the sacraments as oaths, thus 
referring to the communicant rather than defining the 
sacrament itself. In his second, he speaks of them as 
signs, or as signs of duty (pflichtzeichen) or oaths or 
covenant-signs. This idea of them as signs comes over 
from the Catholic definition of them "as visible signs of 
invisible grace." We have thus seen that they were 
defined by the first Protestants as signs. This was es- 
pecially the Zwinglian idea, which was severely attacked 
by Luther. When did the idea of them as seals appear ? 
The Lutherans, according to Luther's Smaller catechism, 
defined the Lord's Supper thus : "The Lord's Supper 
is the true body and blood of Christ." They did not let 
anything figurative, like the sign and the seal, come in to 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



lower, as it seemed to them, the idea of the reality of the 
presence of Christ's body. This idea of seal does not 
become prominent until the Lasco catechisms. It first ap- 
pears in Lasco's catechism and is followed by the Mi- 
cronius and the Emden. In fact, all these put the phrase 
"signs and seals" together, when even Calvin had not 
done it in his catechism. Our Answer 66 is very much 
like the 54th of the Emden catechism. It, however, omits 
an important element in the Emden, the social and ethical 
significance of the sacrament. But the Heidelberg em- 
phasizes an idea, not so prominent in the Emden — namely, 
the memorial idea of the sacraments, both as to baptism 
as well as the Lord's Supper. Indeed, the Heidelberg 
adds a whole new answer, the 67th, which refers the 
whole of our salvation to the one sacrifice of Christ. This 
answer, like the 32d, of which we have spoken, seems to 
be entirely new — that is, is not in either of Ursinus' pre- 
vious catechisms. It is evident that the authors of the 
catechism wanted to emphasize the memorial character of 
the sacraments, or they would not have put it in the cate- 
chism. Indeed, its importance is shown by its being 
placed at the very beginning of the sacraments. This 
memorial idea is, however, later balanced by Calvin's 
ideas (baptism as a sign of the covenant (74), and the 
spiritual presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper (76).) 

We might go on thus and trace other answers in our 
catechism back to the earlier catechisms, but it is not 
necessary. It is very evident, from what has already been 
given, that the authors of our catechisms made use of 
earlier catechisms to a very considerable extent. 

But before leaving this, we will refer to four places in 
our catechism which are somewhat peculiar in meaning. 

The first is the section from answers 12 to 18, which 
has sometimes been called the scholastic part of our cate- 



76 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



chism, and some have, therefore, objected to it. It cer- 
tainly proceeds with the severest dialectic to show that, 
as we could not save ourselves and no creature could save 
us, it was necessary for a divine-human Christ to do so. 
This section is not in either of the previous catechisms 
of Ursinus, though some of the individual answers refer 
to some of their answers scattered here and there. We 
have to leap over these and go away back to Leo Juda's 
first catechism, and there is the whole plan wrought out 
in all these steps many years before. 

The second is in the 37th answer, "Christ sustained the 
wrath of God against the sins of all mankind." This has 
been a battleground. The infralapsarians claim it taught 
that Christ died only for the elect ; the sublapsarians that 
he died for the sins of the whole world. Do the sources 
give any light? It, doubtless, was an echo of Ursinus' 
Larger catechism (86), which says "as if he alone had 
committed all the sins of all men." Professor Lang says 
the latter view does not contradict Calvin's doctrine, as 
stated in the Geneva Consensus. We have not been able 
to find the expression in any of the catechisms, but sus- 
pect it comes either from Lasco or Bullinger, both of 
whom held to the universal atonement. Ursinus' ex- 
planation of this answer is infralapsarian, but those of 
us who are sublapsarian and hold to the universal atone- 
ment are glad this last phrase got into the catechism. 

The third is, where does answer 44, which gives 
the figurative explanation of Christ's descent into hell, 
referring it to the sufferings of Christ, come from. This 
our catechism got from Calvin, who so explains it. But 
Leo Juda, in his earlier catechisms, refers it to a place — 
namely, his going among the dead, as did Bucer and 
Zell. The figurative explanation of our catechism is true 
as far as it goes, but it is not the historical one. 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



Then, lastly, let us look at the 8oth answer against the 
Romish mass. This answer can lay claim to originality, 
for it was placed in the catechism, as we know, after it 
was first published. The earlier catechisms stated the 
positive side of the Lord's Supper, rather than the 
polemical. And yet our Heidelberg is not alone in de- 
nouncing the mass. The catechism of Bullinger speaks 
against the mass, because it is a sacrifice. It devotes two 
answers to it. There is also an answer in Calvin's cate- 
chism against the mass as an offering for sin.* So that 
the Heidelberg has company in its denunciation of the 
mass, as it had good reason to put it in just then, be- 
cause of the severe denunciations of Protestants by the 
Council of Trent. 

c. conclusion 

From this study of our catechism it is evident that 
our catechism was not, by any means, an original com- 
position. Rather, it was a summary of the catechetical 
literature of the previous thirty years. It was the rich, 
ripe fruit of the catechetical effort of the Church for a 
quarter of a century. And it is this that gives it its pe- 
culiar power. It was a finished product of the fervent 
devotional spirit of an age of such fresh religious spirit 
as the reformation, before it degenerated into formalism 
and dry dogma. This accounts for the devotional ex- 
perimental character of the Heidelberg. It was developed 
out of a period when the warmth of the Holy Spirit's 
power was still filling the hearts of the people. 

But while all this is all true, it does not lower the 
merit of the authors of the catechism, Ursinus and Ole- 

* Melancthon, in his "Considerations of Ordinances," which 
Ursinus had used at Breslau, speaks of the mass as an idolatry, 
as he does also in his dogmatics. 



78 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



vianus. Rather it should enhance our appreciation of 
their labors. This study of the sources of our catechism 
is a wonderful revelation of their wide knowledge of 
previous catechisms. And it also reveals their wonderful 
ability in utilizing all this material to form a catechism 
finer than any that had gone before. All this know- 
ledge, together with the deftness with which they linked 
all together, and then their masterful comprehension of 
the whole subject, reveal them as masters of the catecheti- 
cal art. This is the more wonderful when we remember 
that they were still young, only 26 and 28 years of age. 
But great eras produce great genius and the reforma- 
tion was full of illustrations of this. Especially must the 
praise go to Ursinus, who seems to have been the main 
author of the catechism. He seems to have been a 
past-master of catechetics, as no one before or after 
him. But both authors together produce in this cate- 
chism something more beautiful than either produced 
alone. It may well be called a coat of many colors, each 
color representing a previous catechism. No, it is more 
than that. The threads of these different catechisms are 
so woven into each other and through one another as 
to be lost in the matchless whole. "It is," says Rev. 
Prof. G. W. Richards, D.D., "not simply a mosaic of 
excerpts from various sources, but a new creation with 
original strength and beauty, both a work of art and a 
book of doctrine." 

What a wonderful catechism is ours. Whether we 
look at the men who wrote it, or at the previous provi- 
dential preparation in their lives for writing it, or at the 
wonderful way in which they worked it up, or at the re- 
markable history of the catechism since it came forth from 
their hands, it is all very wonderful. We can only say 
of it, as of the Bible, of which it is but the echo, that 



THE PREVIOUS CATECHISMS 



it is a wonderful book, because written, not by the Holy 
Spirit, as is the Bible, but by the guidance of that same 
Holy Spirit on its composers. 



CHAPTER II 



the: catechism of ursinus' boyhood 

An unknown source of the Heidelberg catechism was 
the catechism of Ursinus' boyhood. Before he had ever 
seen the catechisms of Calvin, Juda or Lasco, which he 
undoubtedly used in the Heidelberg, the first catechism 
to which he was introduced was the one he studied in 
the school at Breslau, his birthplace, and in which he 
was taught by his pastor in the St. Elizabeth's Church 
there. This catechism has been found. And a lover of 
the Heidelberg catechism will examine it with interest, 
so as to see what of it Ursinus later put into our Heidel- 
berg catechism. 

The city of Breslau, where Ursinus was born, had 
two leading reformers, John Hess and Ambrose Moi- 
banus. It is in the latter that we are interested, for he 
it was who catechized Ursinus. Moibanus was a native 
of Breslau and was born there April 4, 1494. After 
studying at the schools of his native city, he went, at the 
age of sixteen, to the university of Cracau, which had at 
that time attained to prominence, having produced one 
of the great world-thinkers, Copernicus, the astronomer. 
When Moibanus went there, the new learning of the 
reformation, humanism, had already entered the uni- 
versity, and Moibanus there first came into contact with 
it. In 15 1 5 he went to the university of Vienna, then 
one of the largest universities of Europe, having five 
thousand students. There one of the professors, named 
Salzer, who was a humanist, made a deep impression 

80 



MOIBANUS' CATECHISM 



81 



on him. Moibanus there became a humanist, but of 
a somewhat rationalistic type, if he may be judged by 
his earliest writings. But there he learned the Greek 
language, which was the evangel of the new reformation, 
superseding the sacred language of the Romish Church, 
the Latin, and introducing the reader directly to the New 
Testament with its teachings so different from Catho- 
licism. While at Vienna he made a trip to southern 
Germany, where he met Reuchlin, who, with Erasmus, 
was the father of humanism and who was the teacher 
of Melancthon. After Moibanus had returned to Vienna 
and taken his degree, he entered the ranks of the teach- 
ing profession. And through the influence of his pa- 
tron, Bishop Turzo, of Breslau, he was, in 1518, made 
rector of the school of the cathedral there. 

It was about this time that strange things began to 
take place at Wittenberg, in eastern Germany. Luther 
had nailed his theses (October 31, 1577) on the door 
of the castle church against the sale of papal indulgences. 
And as a result, Germany was beginning to seethe with 
protests against the abuses of Romanism. Moibanus 
was, as we have seen, at first a humanist of a rather 
intellectual type. But as a humanist he was friendly 
with Melancthon, who represented the humanistic side 
of the early reformation in Germany. He visited Me- 
lancthon at Wittenberg, in 1520, and thus came into direct 
contact with the reformation. At the death of his 
friend and patron, Bishop Turzo, who had guided his 
steps to humanism and who had favored the cause of 
the reformation, he resigned his position at the cathe- 
dral and became rector of another school in Breslau, 
that of the St. Mary Magdalene Church, for each 
church had its own parochial school at that time, such 
a thing as a public school being then unknown. Moi- 

6 



82 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



banus there taught Greek, being the first to teach that 
language in his native land of Silesia. 

But it seems he was not satisfied with being merely 
a teacher. The humanist in him was blossoming out 
into the reformer. His later works show him to have 
been a serious-minded young man, and he wanted some- 
thing more than mere teaching and humanism. So he 
decided to exchange teaching for preaching. And in 
1523 he went to Wittenberg to study theology. There, 
though he was friendly with Luther, yet Melancthon 
was his special friend and guide. 

Meanwhile, as he was studying the Protestant doc- 
trines at Wittenberg, Protestantism broke out in his na- 
tive city of Breslau. John Hess was elected pastor of the 
Mary Magdalene Church, May 20, 1523. And two years 
later (1525) Moibanus was elected pastor of the St. 
Elizabeth's Church, for many in it remembered the ex- 
cellent work he had done in Breslau as a teacher and 
hoped much from him as a pastor. His election as 
pastor made two of the churches of Breslau Protestant, 
Hess being already pastor at the St. Mary Magdalene 
Church. Many were the controversies that these two 
reformers had with the priests of the cathedral, which, 
after the death of Bishop Turzo, became the stronghold 
of the Catholics. But Protestantism finally triumphed 
in Breslau. 

Now it was his pastorate of the St. Elizabeth's 
Church that makes him interesting to us, for it brought 
him into contact with Ursinus, one of the authors of our 
Heidelberg catechism, who was born in that parish. But 
before taking up his relations to Ursinus, let us briefly 
look at his life and complete it. After he became pastor 
of St. Elizabeth's Church, he introduced Protestant cus- 
toms into the Church. He changed the language of the 



MOIBANUS' CATECHISM 



83 



services from Latin into the German, and put away many 
Catholic ceremonies. But he was a man of mild spirit 
and introduced the reformation with great common 
sense, avoiding conflict, if possible. He was a Lutheran 
of the earlier type, when it was hard to distinguish 
Lutheranism from the Reformed; this was before the 
controversies had started, which so sadly divided them 
later. Trials came upon him to deepen his piety. The 
Turks came and captured Breslau in 1537. The plague 
appeared in 1543, and took away one-fifteenth of the 
inhabitants. In 1537, Moibanus, though usually a man 
of peace, came out strongly against the sects, for 
Schwenkfeldians and Anabaptists existed around him. 

After the death of Hess, he was for many years the 
head of the Protestant Church of that city. He died 
at the age of sixty, on January 16, 1554, after having 
been twenty-nine years pastor at St. Elizabeth's. He 
was a man of great piety and peace, passing away just as 
the terrible strife broke out between the high- and low- 
Lutherans. Indeed, it was his irenic disposition and 
great common sense that had been a great factor in 
keeping out, for many years, all strife in Breslau. But it 
broke out as soon as he died, and Ursinus was the 
sufferer. 

We have dwelt on his life at some length because 
of his great influence on Ursinus. No one can measure 
the influence of a pastor on a young and developing 
child in his congregation. He is certain to be a potent 
force in that one's life, either for good or else, alas, for 
evil. It was the influence of Zwingli's uncle, the priest 
of Wesen, that made the boy Zwingli the humanist, that 
made him later the great reformer. It was the influ- 
ence of his patron, Bishop Turzo, that had made Moi- 
banus a humanist and an Evangelical. Such an influ- 



84 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



ence Moibanus passed on to Ursinus, for it was his 
influence that led Ursinus to go to Melancthon, and 
also prepared him to become Reformed. He also gave 
to Ursinus his love for peace. For Ursinus naturally 
disliked controversy, yet, strange to say, had to pass 
most of his life in it. Moibanus gave to Ursinus, who 
was naturally inclined to intellectualism, a practical bent 
of mind which corrected it. Ursinus was naturally in- 
clined to conscientiousness and serious-mindedness, and 
it was the earnest ministrations of his godly pastor that 
deepened these and guided his piety into its best channels. 
And when we pass from Moibanus' personal influence 
on Ursinus to his influence on him through his cate- 
chism, we shall see how deeply he worked himself into 
the life of his pupil. 

It was in this parish of St. Elizabeth that a boy, 
whom Moibanus baptized Zachariah Baer, was born on 
July 1 8, 1534. This name, Baer, was later latinized, 
after the manner of that age, into Ursinus. Ursinus, 
when a boy of from twelve to fifteen years of age, went 
to religious instruction under Moibanus, so as to be pre- 
pared for confirmation; for in Germany the course of 
instruction in the catechism lasts longer than with us, 
and is quite thorough. It was in this school of St. 
Elizabeth, at Breslau, that Ursinus first came into contact 
with the educational ideas of the humanists, which Moi- 
banus had introduced there. No wonder he became the 
great dialectician of later years, for, from his earliest 
years, he had been trained to its clearness and logical- 
ness of thought under Moibanus. He continued under 
the direct influence of Moibanus until his sixteenth year, 
when he went away to the university of Wittenberg. 

And Moibanus still continued to influence him after 
he had gone to Wittenberg, for Moibanus was in the 



ftrcat Mmm nf \\i fUfraei Ciwrrji 
In Sntmrii. 



Tamil Series, No. IV. 

THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM. 



Q p eft en nib p O p tft eS d Qp p p @ 

QS)6)(bQL-<5vQiJIT<£ Spj^QsiS^Lb 

gt csr epi lo 



MADRAS: 

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY IT. W. LAURIE, 
AT THE CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY'S PBES8, TSPBBT- 
1 8 C 9. 

The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Tamil 
language. See pages 13-14. 



MOIBANUS' CATECHISM 



85 



habit of helping students through school and to college; 
and it was doubtless he who got some of the citizens of 
Breslau to give Ursinus money to go away to college. 
It was Moibanus who gave him a letter to Melancthon, 
which thus predisposed him to become a Melancthonian. 
In all this we see how Moibanus was all unconsciously 
preparing Ursinus for his great work on our catechism. 

The writer's attention was first called to Moibanus 
and his catechism by reading the brief biography of Moi- 
banus, by Konrad, an assistant minister of St. Elizabeth's 
Church, in Breslau, which was published im 1891. On 
page 49 of that biography, Konrad says of Moibanus' 
catechism : 

"It is a statement of Christian piety according to the 
principles of the reformers. It gathers together the most 
important brief statements of doctrine so as to be learned 
by heart and then more fully explained. In this respect 
this catechism can be considered a forerunner of the 
Heidelberg/' 

"This is all that Konrad' said, but it was enough to 
lead the writer to institute a search. And when, shortly 
after, a visit to Breslau led to the finding of a copy of 
this book, he at once began an examination to see what 
there was in Moibanus' catechism that was in the Heidel- 
berg, and with startling results. 

Moibanus published his first catechism in February, 
1533, only four years after Luther published his cate- 
chism. It was a Latin catechism. In 1535 he pub- 
lished it again, but in German, and in 1537, again, in 
Latin. His catechism greatly stirred up the Catholic 
priests at the cathedral in Breslau, who found it difficult 
to answer. They published two replies at the expense 
of the chapter of the cathedral — one by Hildebrand, the 
other by Cochlaeus, in 1537. The latter bitterly com- 
plains about Moibanus, that he, a layman, should pre- 



86 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



sume to perform ministerial acts. The catechism of 
1535 had also quite a commentary on each paragraph 
of the catechism, and it was stated in the introduction 
that this edition was intended for those who did not go to 
school, just as the Latin one had been intended for the 
school pupils. But the catechism in both Latin and Ger- 
man had the same contents and arrangements. It was 
not arranged in the form of question and answer, but 
consisted of brief paragraphs. The fact is, that it took 
the Church in Reformation times quite a while to learn 
that the Socratic method (by question and answer), was 
the best. Thus Calvin's first catechism was not arranged 
in questions and answers, but in chapters like a theologi- 
cal treatise. His second edition has questions and an- 
swers. And when the Reformation Church began to use 
the questions and answers, it sometimes tried to use 
them in the wrong way. Thus the first catechism of 
Leo Juda, of Zurich, made the catechumen ask the ques- 
tions and the minister give the answers. This was 
changed in his next catechism to our present method, 
where the minister asks the questions and the pupil gives 
the answers. In view of all this, one is not surprised 
that Moibanus' catechism, like many catechisms of that 
period in the Protestant Church of Germany, was not in 
the form of questions and answers, but in paragraphs. 
The catechism of 1535 had, however, an appendix ar- 
ranged in question and answer. It was in the form of a 
dialogue between father and son. This dialogue was 
changed in the edition of 1537 and 1538 into a dialogue 
between teacher and pupil. The former was evidently 
intended for home instruction, the latter for the schools. 
Ursinus doubtless studied the Latin edition which was 
used in the schools. This catechism acquired circulation 



MOIBANUS' CATECHISM 



87 



beyond Breslau, for it was somewhat used in Branden- 
burg. 

But in all these catechisms, whether in Latin or Ger- 
man, the order of the topics is the same and the main 
paragraphs are the same. The book is divided into ten 
heads: 1, piety; 2, the law; 3, the gospel; 4, Christ; 
5, the sacraments; 6, baptism; 7, the Lord's Supper; 8, 
love and good works; 9, calling; and 10, prayer. 

Moibanus' catechism was practical and experimental. 
It did not begin with a statement of doctrine or with a 
historical statement, as some catechisms begin with the 
fall of man in Eden. It began with a practical subject, 
and yet one of the greatest importance to a child — the 
subject of piety. Piety it divided into two parts — man's 
relation to man and also to God. Piety toward man is 
to live an honorable and blameless life before men ; 
piety toward God is to live a life of faith in Him. The 
subjects that come next, "the law," "Gospel" and 
"Christ," are treated in a practical way. Of the sacra- 
ments, which come next, we will speak later. After the 
sacraments, the catechism devotes three sections to the 
practice of religion, thus returning to its idea at the be- 
ginning, — namely, piety. Two of these sections are en- 
titled "love, or good works," and "calling," which treats 
of duties to parents, masters and magistrates. The cate- 
chism closes with a section on prayer, and shows what the 
catechumen should pray, why and to whom. These clos- 
ing paragraphs of the catechism are so beautiful and de- 
votional that we may pause to give them. He defines 
prayer as a "calling for divine help and strength through 
Jesus Christ, our bishop, priest and intercessor before 
God, the Father, in each affliction and anxiety." The 
last paragraph reads thus : 

"Prayer is, therefore, our only anchor to which we 



88 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



can have refuge when crosses come upon us. And the 
only prayer that rises out of genuine faith cries to heaven 
and sighs from the heart : 'Father, Father, dear Father.' " 

With this expression of endearment, the catechism 
closes in as practical a way as it began on the subject 
of piety. Piety and prayer at its beginning and end, 
how beautiful ! 

Such, in brief, is the catechism which Ursinus had to 
learn when a boy. And now the interesting question 
comes before us, "Is there anything in this catechism 
of Moibanus that Ursinus put into the Heidelberg cate- 
chism ?" Much research has been made into the sources 
of the Heidelberg catechism, as we have seen, by Pro- 
fessors Gooszen and Lang. They have clearly shown 
that Ursinus and Olevianus used other catechisms in 
preparing the Heidelberg, mainly the catechisms of 
Strasburg, Zurich, Geneva and Lasco. But none of 
these writers on the sources of the catechism have gone 
back as far in Ursinus' life as to take up the catechism 
of his boyhood. Let us then compare the two cate- 
chisms and see where the Heidelberg is indebted to Moi- 
banus' catechism. 

This catechism of Moibanus' is not only interesting 
as a source-book of the Heidelberg, but also because it 
gives us an insight into the religion of Ursinus as a 
boy. A boy's faith is always an interesting study. We 
shall see in this study the contents of Ursinus' boyish 
faith by noticing the things in Moibanus' catechism 
that he put into the Heidelberg. They were the abiding 
things of his early faith. For the boy is father of the 
man, and a boy's religion is prophetic of his religion as 
a man. The first view-point that a boy gets of religion is 
apt to stay with him and color all his later religious 
experiences. 



MOIBANUS' CATECHISM 



89 



What, then, were the religious impressions of the 
boy Ursintis? You can see it by noting the truths of 
Moibanus' catechism that he puts into the Heidelberg. 
The religious truths of his boyhood catechism, that made 
the deepest and most lasting impression on him, he put 
into the Heidelberg, written about 15 years after he 
studied Moibanus' catechism. He evidently felt that 
the truths that impressed him most as a boy would be 
the ones that would impress other boys and girls, and so 
he puts them into the Heidelberg. For there are three 
or four fundamental religious truths that it is exceed- 
ingly important a child should get clearly and strongly. 
They are his ideas of God, of sin, of faith, and of the 
Christian life. It is all-important that he should get 
right ideas about them. For wrong ideas on them have 
often made shipwreck of many for this life and the 
next. Let us look especially at these doctrines especially 
for a few moments. 

And, first, the doctrine of God. It is needless to say 
that this doctrine is fundamental to all other doctrines, 
whether for adults or for children. As our Gods are, 
so are we. Now what was the idea of God that Ursinus 
learned as a boy. It was that God was a Father. This 
idea of the Fatherhood of God is not a modern idea, 
as the new theology claims, for it is repeated over and 
over again in Moibanus' catechism. Now it is very im- 
portant that a boy get just this idea of God. For some- 
times God is depicted to the young as a severe judge or 
as a sort of policeman, or perhaps as an arbitrary sov- 
ereign. The supralapsarian Calvinists used to paint God 
as a sovereign of arbitrary will. Children when grown 
to years often react against such caricatures of God. 
But Ursinus was taught as a boy that God was a Father, 
"a heavenly Father," "a gracious Father." And it is in- 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



teresting to see that this is the idea of God that he puts 
into our Heidelberg catechism, so that the children, who 
learn the catechism, may gain that conception. Our cate- 
chism is not constructed after the hard lines of supra- 
lapsarian Calvinism, with its emphasis on the decrees, 
but after the loving spirit of sublapsarian Calvanism, 
with its emphasis not on the decrees, but on redemption.* 

The Heidelberg emphasizes not the severity of God 
in election, but the grace and mercy of God. This doc- 
trine of the Fatherhood of God is beautifully brought 
out in answer 26, where it says : 

"He is, for the sake of Christ, his Son, my God 
and my Father, in whom I rely so entirely that I have 
no doubt that he will provide me with all things neces- 
sary for soul and body." 

The next two answers (27 and 28), are full of this 
thought of God, as in 28 it says : 

"We place our firm trust in our faithful God and 
Father, that nothing shall separate us from His love." 

The Heidelberg catechism is a catechism of God's 
love. Ursinus learned this great truth when a boy. And 
every one who reads his letters will see that he is full 
of this idea, even at times when everything seemed dark 
to him. He was saved from pessimism only by his be- 
lief that God was a loving Father. 

But such an idea of God may become sentimental. 
Because God loves us so much, we may be led to pre- 
sume too much on his love; and so some have used this 
idea as an incentive to sin rather than a restraint against 
sin. A God of mere love makes God to be a weak God. 
As Prof. A. Strong says, "It gives us not the fatherhood 
of God, but the papahood of God," by which God be- 
comes an infinite papa rather than an all-wise Father. 

*For the sublapsarians over against the infralapsarians be- 
lieved in universal atonement. 



CHIN-HOK & 



BUN-TAP. 



Ta"-ma-ji Sian-si* Hoan-ek 6. 



E-MNG, 
1907. 



The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Chinese 
language in Latin letters. See page 14. 



MOIBANUS' CATECHISM 



91 



So the belief in the love of God must be connected with 
the idea of a just God also. These two attributes of 
love and justice give us a true idea of God. They are 
correlative to each other. Love tempers justice; justice 
gives strength to love. Such an idea of God also gives 
a proper idea of sin ; for a God, who is not just by pun- 
ishing sin, produces a vague idea of sin and, therefore, 
of its punishment. Many a boy goes off into a life of 
sin because he does not have the proper corrective in 
a proper idea of God as a God of love, but also of unerr- 
ing justice. 

Now, Ursinus received an idea of God, and of his 
justice in relation to sin, in his boyhood, from Moibanus' 
catechism. And the idea he received then seems to have 
left a lasting impression on his mind, for he repeats the 
very words of Moibanus' catechism in the Heidelberg. 
Scripture verses are rarely incorporated in the Heidel- 
berg catechism. The verses of the Bible are often used 
as proof-texts ; but rarely do you find one given in full 
in the text of the catechism. There must have been 
some unusual reason, or it would not have been placed 
there. This makes the Scripture text to which we re- 
fer the more noticeable. We have often wondered at 
the Scripture text in answer 10 of the Heidelberg: 
"Cursed in every that continueth not in all things that 
are written in the book of the law to do them." We 
have often wondered why Ursinus chose that particular 
text. For there is something harsh about that verse. 
The idea of cursing is an offensive, not a pleasant one 
to this age, which so often attempts to emasculate God's 
wrath by using empty phrases and gentler language. 
One feels that there are other Bible verses on the same 
subject that might have better been chosen, such as "the 
soul that sinneth it shall die." Why did Ursinus use 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



this particular text in the Heidelberg. If you will turn 
to the catechism of his boyhood you will see the reason 
why, for it is there. That verse evidently made a deep 
impression on him as a boy and must have lingered with 
him till he wrote the Heidelberg. For he was of a very 
conscientious disposition, indeed overconscientious, and 
this verse must have come home to him with terrible 
force and often kept him from sin. As it had been so 
powerful in himself, he evidently felt it was just the 
verse to put into the Heidelberg, as he believed it would 
be as powerful on the children who studied it as it had 
been on him. 

Take another important subject of a boy's religion — 
faith. We have often wondered where the Heidelberg 
catechism got that complete and magnificent definition of 
faith in answer 21, the best definition in any catechism, 
"Faith is not only a certain knowledge * * * but also 
an assured confidence." The German, which is the ori- 
ginal language of the catechism, has it better than the 
English, not merely "an assured confidence," but "a hearty 
confidence." Some years ago we thought we had found 
the source of this expression in the catechism of Calvin, in 
whose first edition there is a section on confidence in 
God. Strange, is it not, that Calvin, who is usually reck- 
oned so cold, as cold as an icicle, should produce a sec- 
tion of such warmth of heart. However, the recent 
publication of Calvin's letters has shown that Calvin 
was not so cold, and that he had a warm heart as well as 
a great head. But we can get this definition of faith as 
"a hearty confidence" in our catechism more nearly than 
in Calvin's. Lo, the very words of this definition are in 
Moibanus' catechism. Ursinus learned that idea of faith 
from his pastor when he was a boy. In the tenth para- 
graph, under the first head of Moibanus' catechism — ■ 



MOIBANUS' CATECHISM 



93 



namely, piety — we read the statement: "Faith is the 
very highest and heartiest confidence of the children of 
God." That high idea of his boyish religion Ursinus 
never outlived. He put it into the Heidelberg. It always 
remained with him as his greatest consolation. To show 
you its unusual influence in our 21st answer, it is to be 
remembered that Ursinus was mainly a man of intellect. 
He was a logician, an Aristotelianist. The intellectual 
idea of faith would, therefore, have been the one that 
would be apt to have caught his eye and then frame his 
life. Had he defined faith naturally he would have in- 
clined to stop with the first part of the definition of the 
Heidelberg, which says that faith is "a certain knowledge 
whereby I hold for truth all God has revealed in his 
word." Why did he complete this by saying faith was 
"a hearty confidence?" Because Moibanus, in his cate- 
chism, had given him an experimental idea of faith. We 
probably never would have had so complete a definition 
of faith if Ursinus had not been under Moibanus. 

A fourth very important doctrine to the child, is the 
view he is taught concerning the Christian life. What 
idea did Ursinus learn from Moibanus? The eighth sec- 
tion of Moibanus' catechism is entitled "Love or good 
works"— that is, the Christian life consists of good works 
or love. Love is the motive and good works the result. 
Ursinus never got beyond this idea of the Christian life 
as love to God. Indeed, his two greatest ideas seem 
to have been that God was his Father, and the Christian 
life was a life of love to God. You can see this by the 
way he expresses himself in the Heidelberg. Almost at 
the very beginning is the fifth answer: "What is the 
law of God?" And the answer is not given in the Ten 
Commandments, as is done by most catechisms of that 
day, which place the decalogue first. No, the Heidel- 



94 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



berg uses the two commandments of the New Testa- 
ment — the "royal law," as they are called, "Thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, etc., and thy 
neighbor as thyself." This is better than the Ten Com- 
mandments, for they are negative; these are positive. 
The decalogue refers to the outward act, these to the 
inward motive. But there is also a special reason why 
Ursinus puts these two commandments in the Heidel- 
berg. It is because Moibanus' catechism does not have 
the Ten Commandments at all in his text. * The idea 
of God's law is given thus by Moibanus: "Thou shalt 
love God for all things and thy neighbor as thyself." 
Ursinus seems to have learned, as a boy, to love this 
statement as the best summary of the law, and he em- 
phasized it in our catechism by putting it at the beginning. 

And this idea of the Christian life, as a life of love, 
runs through the Heidelberg. Why, even the answer in 
the Heidelberg, on good works, seems like an echo of 
Moibanus' statements about good works, for both urge 
the setting aside of all reliance on the flesh, and Moi- 
banus urges entire reliance on faith in order to make the 
works good. 

Thus we see that the main ideas of his boyish religion 
Ursinus put into the Heidelberg, in order that they might 
be useful to other children as they had been to him. And 
that is one among many reasons why the Heidelberg is 
a catechism of such power. It is not merely an intellect- 
ual theological treatise, but the record of a personal ex- 
perience. There are also lesser references of the Heidel- 
berg to Moibanus. Thus the idea of comfort, which is 

* One edition had the text of the Decalogue printed at the 
end of the catechism with the creed and Lord's Prayer, but no 
question or commentary on it, and another had a brief dialogue 
on it. But it is not in the main body of the catechism. 



MOIBANUS' CATECHISM 95 

so prominent at the beginning of the Heidelberg, is once 
incidentally found in Moibanus. Moibanus also closes 
with a prayer : so does the Heidelberg, whose answers on 
the Lord's Prayer are in the form of prayers. But 
time fails to dwell upon these. We might also speak of 
the differences and contrasts between Moibanus and the 
Heidelberg. Suffice it to say that the Heidelberg is a 
far advance on Moibanus' in many ways, yet it must be 
remembered that Moibanus wrote at the beginning of the 
catechetical period of the sixteenth century and Ursinus 
near its close. Ursinus had more than a quarter of a 
century of catechetical literature behind him from which 
to draw, while Moibanus did not have much before him 
that he could utilize. 

But it is especially on the sacraments that we meet 
with a surprise. Here there is almost nothing of high- 
Lutheranism — one is almost tempted to say nothing of 
Lutheranism at all. It defines the sacraments as seals 
and promises given in order to take away all doubts. 
But "signs and seals" is the Reformed statement. 

On baptism it is slightly more Lutheran than on the 
Lord's Supper. Here are his paragraphs on baptism: 

1. There are two things in baptism. One is that 
when we are baptized in water we thus recognize our 
uncleanness, and that we are sinners from Adam down. 
The other is that we receive, by faith in our hearts, a 
true confession that we are purified by the death of 
Christ and born again.* 

2. In this way baptism enables us our whole life to 
overcome this wicked world, which is the kingdom of the 
devil, and for this reason Paul always calls baptism the 
mortification of the flesh. 

3. By baptism one goes, just like the Israelites of 

* The likeness between this answer and answer 69 of the 
Heidelberg is clearly seen, for both distinguish between the two 
parts of baptism. 



96 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



old, through the Red Sea to the holy and promised land, 
which is the Kingdom of Christ. 

Now in all this there is no emphasis laid on baptismal 
regeneration, which is the peculiar doctrine of high- 
Lutheranism. Indeed it is over against high-Lutheranism 
by bringing in faith as a necessity. And on the other 
hand, it does make a good deal of a meaning of baptism 
that is often forgotten by Lutherans, and that was empha- 
sized by the Reformed — namely, that baptism, as well as 
the Lord's Supper, has a close reference to the death of 
Christ. Moibanus brings this out more especially in his 
comments on these paragraphs. And we suspect that it 
was this emphasis on the relation of baptism to the death 
of Christ, that may have led Ursinus to so emphasize the 
death of Christ in the answers on baptism (69-73) in the 
Heidelberg. However, in his commentary on the cate- 
chism, Moibanus three times refers to baptism as the 
washing away of sin ; but this was restricted to believers. 
And there is the same emphasis as in the catechism on 
the intimate relation of baptism to the cross and blood 
of Christ. In his comments he spends more time in argu- 
ing against the Anabaptists than he does on the nature 
of baptism itself, for he denounces them because he says 
they held that children cannot sin until they are fourteen 
years of age. 

But it is especially on the Lord's Supper that the 
greatest surprise awaits us. Here there is nothing spe- 
cifically Lutheran. This catechism stands out in con- 
trast with other Silesian catechisms, which devote much 
space to the sacraments, and, with the exception of 
Schwenkfeld's, are distinctly Lutheran. The Lutherans 
always emphasized the presence of the real body of Christ 
in the Lord's Supper. The Zwinglians emphasized the 
memorial aspect, that it reminds us of the death of Christ 




The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Japanese 
language. See page 14. 



MOIBANUS' CATECHISM 



97 



for us. What does Moibanus say? Let us note his 
language : 

"i. The use of this holy sacrament consists in this, 
that one becomes a partaker of the body and blood of 
Christ, which only belongs to those who are baptized in 
Christ. 

"2. Christ says, when he had taken the bread in his 
hand, 'Take, eat, this is my body, etc' And when he 
had taken the cup, he said: 'Drink ye all of it, for this 
cup is the New Testament of my blood. For as oft as 
ye drink of it ye do show the Lord's death.' 

"3. In these words Christ reminds us that we should 
take to heart how much he has loved us. Also that he 
has given his body to the most shameful death, and shed 
his blood as a testimony of our redemption. 

"4. And to this he added the words with a very trust- 
ful heart, as he says : 'This do in my remembrance.' 

"5. In this one can easily see, when and for what 
reason, one should use this most worthy sacrament — 
namely, when you feel that your heart has grown cold in 
the remembrance of Christ's death and his benefits for 
us poor sinners and has grown entirely careless." 

Now, in all this there is nothing said about the pres- 
ence of the real body of Christ in the supper upon which 
the Lutherans harped so much. It is true the expression 
that the communicant "become a partaker of the body 
and blood of Christ" is used, but that form of expression 
the Reformed were also accustomed to use. In Moibanus' 
commentary on the Lord's Supper, he says, "It is true 
that Christ gives his true body and not the shadow of 
it," in which he probably refers to the Zwinglian doctrine 
which made it purely symbolical. But even if these 
expressions be taken as Lutheran, yet they are made sec- 
ondary. The Lord's Supper's most prominent reference 
is to the death of Christ. 

He also, in his dialogue between the father and son, 
calls "the sacraments, signs of the present Christ, who 



7 



98 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



performs everything in the sacrament by his grace, and 
makes the Lord's Supper a sign of the new covenant." 
And yet the phrase "signs of the present Christ" is dif- 
ferent from the phrases used by the stiff Lutherans in 
piling on adjectives "real," "substantial," etc., so as to 
show that Christ was really present. That phrase could 
have been used by Calvin, and was, indeed, used by the 
Reformed, though they interpreted it as referring only to 
a spiritual presence. The second idea of the sacrament 
as a covenant is quite in line with Calvin, who, in the 
sacraments, emphasizes the covenant idea. 

All this becomes somewhat more significant because 
Moibanus had been charged with being a Zwinglian. 
There had been Zwinglianism at Breslau, for in 1530 the 
third minister had been a Zwinglian. And in 1538 Moi- 
banus had been charged before his bishop with being a 
Zwinglian. This he denied in a letter to the bishop. But 
there was probably this truth in it all, not that he was a 
Zwinglian, but that he was a low-Lutheran on the sacra- 
ments, if not a Calvinist. It is also significant that in 
all his bitter attack on the sects, as given in his catechism, 
he does not, like most Lutherans, include the Zwinglians, 
but only the Anabaptists and the Schwenkfelders. While 
Moibanus would probably not have been satisfied with 
the Zwinglian statement of the Lord's Supper, he could 
have been with Calvin's, which makes the Lord's Supper 
more than a memorial — makes Christ present, but spirit- 
ually. That Moibanus is likely to agree with Calvin is 
shown by a very interesting letter, which we give in the 
later chapter on "Ursinus' Conversion to the Reformed 
Faith." We might also call attention to a significant 
omission in this catechism. It has not a word to say 
about confession, as do many of the Lutheran catechisms, 
and as does Luther's own catechism. 



MOIBANUS' CATECHISM 



99 



In addition to these results of Moibanus' catechism 
on Ursinus we may, in closing, note two more : 

1. The variety of the arrangement in Moibanus' cate- 
chism was a school for Ursinus, and led him to prepare, 
in the Heidelberg, a catechism suited to all classes of 
children. The great variety in Moibanus' catechism, 
sometimes with questions and answers, sometimes with- 
out : sometimes for adults, sometimes for children : some- 
times for parents and children, sometimes for teachers 
and children, must have early familiarized him with the 
proper method of reaching all classes. The catechism 
of Moibanus, doubtless also, led him to become interested 
in catechization. As a result of it, it seems he became 
an expert in the study of different catechisms. He be- 
came a great master of catechization. And that was the 
reason why he was able to prepare our Heidelberg cate- 
chism, which was, as we have seen, the ripe fruit of a 
more than a quarter century of catechetical effort on the 
part of the Church. Moibanus' catechism prepared 
Ursinus to become the great catechist, which enabled him 
to write the Heidelberg. 

2. It was Moibanus' catechism that made Ursinus, 
at the beginning of his Christian life, an experimental 
Christian, and thus enabled him to write so experimental 
a catechism as the Heidelberg. The great subject of 
Moibanus' catechism was piety, personal experience, as 
an inspiration to right living. How fortunate it was for 
Ursinus that the first conception of religion, presented to 
him in his boyhood, was the experimental. For Ursinus, 
as we have seen, was not naturally inclined to be experi- 
mental. He was naturally intellectual, very intellectual. 
This shows itself later, as he excelled in dialectics. He 
was also inclined to the ethical, as duty ruled with him. 
He was inclined to be conscientious or rather over-con- 



loo THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



scientious. Both of these are apt to undervalue the ex- 
perimental. And yet he, who later became an intellectual 
giant, this coldly moral young man, produced a catechism 
in the Heidelberg, whose chief characteristic is personal 
experience. Is it not strange ? How was it ? We believe 
it was, in a large part, due to the fact that Moibanus 
started him in this direction through his catechism. Ur- 
sinus owes his great inspiration for the emotional and 
experimental to Moibanus as his teacher. And we who 
love the Heidelberg have Moibanus to thank for making 
Ursinus experimental, that he might give us a catechism 
that begins with comfort for this life and the next, and 
in our catechism looms up before us. 

In view of all these facts Moibanus and his catechism 
grow in value in their relation to our precious catechism, 
and they may be called the forerunners of it, and Moi- 
banus deserves to rank with Bucer, Juda, Calvin and 
Lasco, as the great importance of his influence in Ursinus 
looms up before us. 

May we, in closing, call attention to two practical 
lessons : 

i. How careful a minister, in catechizing his chil- 
dren, should be to give them right ideals of life. We 
do not believe that he would give them false ideals, at 
least intentionally. But sometimes he fails to give them 
any ideals of life when he has every opportunity to do 
so in the catechetical class. And this sin of omission may 
lead some of them at last to destruction. But when 
he gives them great ideals and deeply impresses them as 
Moibanus did Ursinus, in his ideal of faith as a hearty 
confidence, of love to God and man as the ideals of life, 
how wonderful and far-reaching are its results ; yes, how 
eternal the fruitage. Oh, how careful ministers should be 
in catechization. We have known some ministers who 



MOIBANUS' CATECHISM 



IOI 



made their catechetical lectures merely cold, heartless, 
theological lectures, which never affected the heart or 
life of the catechumen. And on the other hand, we have 
known ministers whose catechization never went far be- 
fore their catechumens were convicted of sin, and soon 
rejoicing in the joy of the new birth. How dreadful the 
former method, how blessed the latter. 

2. How beautiful is a boy's faith, "Except ye become 
as a little child, etc." How simple, yet strong, is a boy's 
faith, clearer in vision often than a man's, as he has it 
before the doubts and trials of later years have come on 
him. For it is natural for a child to believe. He in- 
stinctively understands faith. How that clear, yet strong, 
faith ennobles his character and makes him a joy to him- 
self, a blessing to the world. May God help us to pro- 
duce such results in our catechization in our ministry. 



CHAPTER III 



PBTER RAMUS AND HIS SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE CATECHISM 

Two great reformers were produced by France in the 
sixteenth century. With the one the world is very fa- 
miliar — John Calvin. Concerning the other the world 
at large knows comparatively little. But Peter Ramus, 
who was the other, was one of the most distinguished 
philosophers of that century. The one was the reformer 
in religion and theology; the other the reformer in the 
sphere of philosophy and thought. Strange to say, these 
two great men were born in the same district of northern 
France — Picardy — and lived, in early life, within a few 
miles of each other, Peter Ramus being six years the 
younger. 

The grandfather of Ramus, though of noble family, 
had been compelled by reverses to become a mere char- 
coal burner. His father was a laborer and died when 
Peter was little more than a child. Peter was born in 
15 15 at Cust. As a boy he was intensely eager for know- 
ledge and soon exhausted the little learning of the school- 
master of the town. Before he was twelve years of age 
he had twice pushed on to Paris, so as to satisfy his 
burning desire for learning. And twice poverty had com- 
pelled him to return home again from Paris. Of his 
early sufferings from poverty he was never ashamed ; and 
when at last he became a teacher he persistently tried to 
establish gratuitous instruction in Paris for such poor 
boys as he had been. Finally at the age of twelve he 
obtained employment as a servant to a rich student in the 

102 



PETER RAMUS 



103 



College of Navarre at Paris, and thus was able to begin 
his academical studies. His poor widowed mother also 
sold her land in order that he might gain an education, a 
sacrifice later compensated by his tender solicitude for 
her all his life. But though he could now study it was 
laborious work, for he could study only at night, as his 
master demanded his services by day. It is said that he 
arranged an automatic alarm to waken himself after a few 
hours of sleep by the attachment of a stone to a lighted 
cord, which fell and woke him up. Thus he followed the 
example of the old philosopher, Cleanthes, in getting 
knowledge by the aid of oil and lamp. Fortunately, he 
was a healthy boy, or he could not have stood this ordeal, 
as it was he had trouble at times with his eyes. After 
passing the secondary course he spent three and a half 
years in the study of dialectics, as the higher course was 
then called. 

When he was through with his course he was su- 
premely disgusted with its uselessness. He then startled 
his school and later startled the world by his denunciation 
of the philosophy of Aristotle, whose philosophy and 
logic had ruled the world for centuries. Indeed this 
Greek philosopher came nearly being called "St. Aris- 
totle," for Cousin says that several times he narrowly 
escaped canonization at the hands of the Catholic Church, 
as Buddha had been canonized as St. Josaphat. As Calvin 
aimed at the reformation of the Church, so Ramus aimed 
at the reformation of the schools. Calvin produced a 
new era in theology, Ramus aimed to produce a new era 
in philosophy. It was, indeed, a bold thing for so young a 
man (only twenty-one) to do, when at his examination 
for the degree of master, in 1536, he formulated as the 
subject of his disputation the proposition, "All that Aris- 
totle says is false." He there maintained first that Aris- 



104 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



totle's writings were spurious, and, second, that they con- 
tained only errors. We can imagine the consternation of 
the authorities of the university of Paris and the un- 
paralled audacity of the young student, as he thus threw 
down the intellectual gauntlet to Paris, and indeed all 
Europe. But his disputants were helpless, for as Aris- 
totle's works were declared by him to be false, they could 
not appeal to them for proof. They attacked his theses 
for a whole day, but were refuted with such power by 
Ramus that they were compelled to give him his degree. 
Tassoni, the Italian poet, says he defended himself with 
such subtlety that Paris was stupefied and bewildered. 
Luther's nailing the theses to the church door at Witten- 
berg was a parallel to his boldness. Ramus was wrong 
in declaring that the writings attributed to Aristotle was 
not Aristotle's. And yet he was right. What he attacked 
was not the real Aristotle of classic antiquity, but the 
fictitious Aristotle that had become current in the Church, 
the Christian Aristotle, the Romish Aristotle, that the 
Catholic Church had conjured up and who differed from 
the pagan original. He attacked the pseudo-Aristotle, 
which had become an incubus to human thought and an 
obstruction to human progress. Ramus, therefore, de- 
clared it to be the right of men to think for themselves 
and not to have all their thinking done for them by a 
man like Aristotle, or men like the schoolmen of the 
middle ages, who had lived centuries before, and who 
based everything on Aristotle. His act was nothing less 
than a "Declaration of Independence" in the sphere of 
philosophy. 

The degree of Master, which was then given him, gave 
him the right to teach, and he began lecturing at the little 
college of Ave Maria, in Paris. There he proclaimed a 
new educational ideal over against the Aristotelians. His 



PETER RAMUS 



new method of education (for he introduced the hu- 
manistic studies, and for the first time Greek and Latin 
authors were read at the same time) caused the students 
to come in crowds to hear him. He was also one of the 
greatest orators of his day, and that also gave him great 
fame. 

Time fails to speak except briefly of his career as a 
teacher in Paris, for it does not particularly concern us 
in our study of the Heidelberg Catechism. Suffice it to 
say that he started a tremendous controversy, the Aris- 
totelians (and they were many) massed their forces 
against him. As they were not able to answer him in 
debate they tried to suppress him by authority. They 
got the civil authorities to ask that his books be sup- 
pressed. He was summoned before the provost of Paris 
as a "corrupter of the youth," and his case was carried 
up even to the French parliament. For though Ramus 
was still a Catholic, the Catholic Church instinctively 
realized that he was attacking its foundation in Aris- 
totelianism (for the schoolmen held that "without Aris- 
totle's categories there was no religion in Christianity.") 
His enemies declared he was a philosophical heretic, just 
as Calvin was a theological heretic. A commission was 
appointed, the majority of whom were Aristotelians. 
They decided against him, and at once their sentence 
against him was publicly placarded all over the streets of 
Paris. Yes, he was publicly ridiculed on the stage amid 
the applause of the populace. The Aristotelians made it 
as great a celebration as if they were celebrating a great 
national victory. But Ramus was one of those rare char- 
acters, who seemed to thrive on opposition and ridicule. 
The sentence against him forbade him to teach philosophy, 
so he began teaching classics and mathematics, and in 
spite of the opposition many students thronged to hear 



io6 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



him, on account of his ability and eloquence. He was 
the first to introduce into the university of Paris the 
teaching of mathematics worthy of that science, and he 
acquired the name of being "the first mathematician of 
France." All this reveals his great versatility of mind, 
for he was, as Pasquier calls him, "a universal mind." 

When, however, the next king, Henry II, came to the 
throne, in 1547, everything changed. The patron of 
Ramus, Charles of Lorraine, had been the tutor of the 
king, and his first act was to get the king to abrogate 
the decree against Ramus. So Ramus' books were again 
published, and he began lecturing on philosophy. And 
he now went further. He not only attacked the authority 
of Aristotle, but also that of Cicero and Ouintillian, who 
had been the beau-ideals of rhetoric and a classic edu- 
cation. For Ramus was also a reformer in education. 
He claimed the right of the new age to have new ideas, 
and objected to slavish admiration of antiquity all the 
time. He roused a tremendous strife, in which there 
finally appeared a champion against him who became his 
lifelong enemy and who (as we shall see) at last pro- 
cured his death. This enemy was Carpentier, a Catholic 
professor of theology, at Paris. For just as John Huss 
had been put to death because he was a realist in phi- 
losophy, so Ramus was killed because he was an anti- 
Aristotelian. Carpentier debarred the students of Ramus' 
college from receiving the degrees of the university. So 
an appeal was made to parliament, and here, again, Ramus 
gained his rights. The king, who was favorable to him, 
in order to prevent his enemies from again persecuting 
him, established a chair of philosophy and appointed him 
as lecturer to it in 1551. He was now, at the early age 
of 36, royal lecturer, and he drew great crowds. His 
fame also spread to other lands. The more he was at- 



PETER RAMUS 



tacked the more his reputation grew. He published, in 
1554, his "Institutes of Logic," the most important work 
on philosophy before Descartes. 

But now his success changed to adversity. This was 
due, no doubt, to the death of the king. But another 
cause began to appear. He began to show learnings 
toward the Reformed religion. Ten years before, one of 
his students had written to Sturm, of Strasburg, that 
Ramus was secretly a Protestant. Nevertheless, for a 
decade longer he protested his fidelity to the Church of 
Rome. He claimed that he had attacked Aristotle only 
in the name of the gospel, because his ethics was pagan 
and heretical. The cause of his conversion to Protes- 
tantism as this time was the famous Colloquy of Poissy, 
near Paris, held in September, 1561, where the Reformer 
Beza most eloquently pled the cause of the Hugenots 
before the king. But it was not so much Beza's address 
that affected Ramus, as it was the admissions to its truth 
made in his reply to Beza by his friend the Cardinal of 
Lorraine, for the cardinal admitted the abuses of the 
Church, the vices of the clergy and the superiority of 
the Apostolic Church to the Romish Church of his day. 
Waddington, the great biographer of Ramus, says that 
the two things that made Ramus change were (1) the 
protection that the Catholic Church gave to Aristotelian- 
ism, and (2) the ignorance of the Romish clergy, for 
a contemporary declares that the Huguenots possessed at 
that time a monopoly of the knowledge and the talent 
of France. Ah! he was like all logicians, but following 
out the logic of his own premises. His attacks on Aris- 
totelianism could have only one logical result — namely, 
lead him out of the Romish Church, whose philosophy 
was based on it. 

Still, though a Protestant at heart, he did not as yet 



io8 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



openly or even secretly join the Reformed, but his pupils 
more and more discarded Catholic worship. And one 
day in 1562, when the edict gave the Huguenots freedom 
of worship, the students of his college (many of whom 
were sons of Huguenots) burst into the chapel and tore 
down the images and statues. Ramus had nothing to do 
with this, but he received the popular blame for it, which 
his philosophical enemies helped to increase. In 1562 
war broke out between the Huguenots and the Catholics 
and Ramus had to flee from Paris, but came back the 
next year. However, he was not safe, for on two occa- 
sions his life was attempted by hired assassins. But so 
impressed were they by his courage and dignity and the 
persuasiveness of his words that they retreated, leaving 
him unharmed. But his stay was for only a few years, 
for his enemies, especially Carpentarius, were bitterly at- 
tacking him all the while. When another war broke out, 
in 1567, he escaped massacre by fleeing to the Huguenot 
camp at St. Denis. There he used his great eloquence 
successfully to induce the German troops not to go home, 
but to remain, even at less pay. 

But in 1568, because of the dangers, he left France. 
And it is this trip that especially interests us in con- 
nection with the Heidelberg catechism. Though he was 
at this time virtually expatriated from France, yet his 
tour virtually became a triumphal journey, especially 
among Protestant scholars. By this time his reputation 
had become so great that he was called the "French 
Plato," because he held to Platonism over against Aris- 
totelianism. He first went to Strasburg, then to Basle. 
Here he received his warmest reception, and had the most 
scholars, and here he stayed the longest — nearly a year. 
He was entertained by the lady who had, many years be- 
fore, entertained Calvin. He also visited Zurich and 



PETER RAMUS 



109 



then came to Heidelberg in the fall of 1569. It is in this 
visit that we are specially interested, as it reveals an 
interesting internal situation at Heidelberg at that time, 
and also throws a sidelight on the Heidelberg Catechism. 

Ramus, while at Heidelberg, was the guest of Tre- 
mellius, the converted Jew, who was professor of He- 
brew in the university. He was so impressed by Tre- 
mellius that he decided to devote the rest of his life to 
the study of theology. He now at last made a public 
profession of Protestantism in the French Reformed 
Church at Heidelberg, and partook of the Lord's Supper 
after the Reformed fashion. He was so pleased with 
Heidelberg that he would have been willing to accept a 
professorship there, and Elector Frederick III was in- 
clined to give one to him. But difficulties came in the 
way as a great controversy arose, which reveals a very 
interesting situation in regard to the authors of our cate- 
chism. The university of Heidelberg had been strongly 
Aristotelian, and the arrival of this distinguished French 
philosopher caused considerable consternation among the 
Aristotelians. There was also a small party in it of more 
liberal views. He was cordially welcomed by Olevianus, 
Boquin, J. Alting, Dathenus, Junius and Zuleger, and 
received a warm reception by Elector Frederick III as the 
great Reformed writer in literature. 

Before Ramus came, the professor of ethics, Strig- 
elius, had died. So on October 8 a petition was presented 
to the senate of the university by sixty students, — mainly 
French and foreigners — asking that the vacant chair of 
ethics be given to Ramus. The senate, anxious to prevent 
this, threw out the petition on a mere technicality. But 
meanwhile Elector Frederick III had become so favorably 
impressed by Ramus that he decided to appoint him to 
the vacant chair. Indeed, when Ramus, having stayed 



no 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



there some time, considered whether he would not go 
away, Frederick urged him to remain so as to fill a chair 
as a professor extraordinary until the wars in France had 
sufficiently subsided to permit him to return. Ramus 
accepted the offer, and, on October 29, Frederick in- 
formed the rector of the university of this appointment. 

On November 9, the university senate replied by 
remonstrating against the appointment. Ramus ad- 
dressed a letter November 10, saying that he had been ap- 
pointed by the Elector as lecturer, and that he was wait- 
ing for them to make arrangements for him to deliver his 
lecturers. The senate decided to ignore his letter, and 
went at once into the election of a professor to fill the 
vacant chair of ethics, and nominated Professor Xylander. 
This they did to keep Ramus out. The senate also stated 
to the Elector the reason for its opposition to Ramus, 
that it was because he was such a bitter foe to Aris- 
totelianism, which they said had been the official method 
of instruction in the university. The university claimed 
that the Elector had acted contrary to its statutes by not 
waiting until they had first made a nomination. So they 
now appealed to the chancellor of the Elector's court for 
a decision on its legality. But he declared that Frederick 
had the right to make the appointment, and gave them 
to understand that if they would not admit Ramus he 
would have recourse to some other means to bring it 
about. The Elector had been greatly embarrassed by 
the whole affair. He had promised Ramus to let him 
lecture, and yet he did not want to seem to violate the 
statutes of the university. The decision of the chancellor 
relieved him. He now (December n) informed the 
rector of the university that Ramus was authorized with- 
out delay to begin a course of lectures on Cicero's "De- 
fense of Marcellus." The rector then, together with the 



CATECHISMUS. 



MANGALENEH : 
r 

TATENTIKO (AGAMA SAHANI E) 

PIA 

KAKIWALONEH R. SASIMBANGEH 

r 



TINARA SU SOAN HEIDELBERG SU TAUNG 1563. 



Nitumpan C. W. J. STELLER, 

nitara su katellusuleneh 

su pananarang u firraa 
E. J. BRILL, 
su soan Leiden, su taung 1906. 

The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Sangiri 
language. See page 14. 



PETER RAMUS 



ill 



heads of the four departments of the university, pre- 
sented themselves personally to the Elector to plead with 
him against Ramus. But after listening to them, Fred- 
erick, with evident ill-humor, dismissed them by simply 
saying that he had read their remonstrances. It is to be 
noticed, however, that this course of lectures on Cicero 
was not philosophical, but rhetorical and classical. 

So Ramus began lecturing December 14, and there 
was a great tumult at his first lecture. For the students, 
as well as the professors, had to be reckoned with in this 
controversy between Aristotelians and Ramists. The 
students were divided into two parties. The German 
students were, as a rule, against Ramus, while the foreign 
students, especially the French, were either in his favor 
or at least wanted to hear him. Among the latter was 
one named Campogarolle, who defended the authority 
of the Elector, and had declared that in spite of the uni- 
versity Ramus should lecture. Before the arrival of 
Ramus at the lecture room the Aristotelian students took 
away the steps to the platform from which he was to 
lecture, hoping that he would not be able to get up to it 
and lecture. But when he arrived one of the French 
students supplied the place of the steps with his back, and 
Ramus using it as a step, mounted up to the desk. When 
he tried to commence the Aristotelians interrupted him 
with whistles, shouts and great stamping of feet. But 
they had reckoned without their host. Ramus had gone 
through such storms before in Paris. And, as at Paris, 
so here, he had the quick wit to turn them to his ad- 
vantage. According to a listener his peroration was so 
eloquent as to carry his audience with applause, in spite 
of his opponents. After that he continued his lectures 
with great success. 

When this course of lectures closed on January 2, 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



1570, the Elector, at the request of his son, Christopher, 
one of the students, asked him to deliver a course on 
Aristotle's dialectics to the students. This caused a 
tremendous excitement in the university, as his opponents 
knew he would attack their master, Aristotle. For his 
first course of lectures had been on the classics, this, how- 
ever, would be on philosophy. The rector of the uni- 
versity appeared before the Elector and begged him to 
consider the preservation of order in the university. He 
also asked him not to take counsel of inexperienced young 
men (probably referring to his son), but of the uni- 
versities of Wittenberg and Leipsic. This led the Elector 
to delay a little so as to consult others who had great 
influence. Ursinus finally succeeded in stopping the 
whole matter, as he told the Elector that Ramism was 
neither a true dialectics nor a true rhetoric, because many 
parts of them were left out. He declared, in his terse, 
sententious way, that by it the youth would learn to fly 
without feathers, to read without syllables or letters. As 
a result Elector Frederick III decided to suspend the 
course of lectures on Aristotle, though he presented 
Ramus with his portrait as a token of his esteem. Thus, 
the Aristotelians were victorious.* 

The significance of all these events at Heidelberg will 
appear in a moment. We hasten to conclude this biog- 
raphy of Ramus (already too long, but which it has been 
impossible to shorten) by giving the tragic end of Ramus. 
Having left Heidelberg he went to Geneva and then back 
to Paris. He tried to get back to his old professorship 
there. But his old friend, the Cardinal of Lorraine, had 
now turned his back on him, because he had become a 
Protestant. Then he tried to get to Geneva, but Beza, 

* Ursinus, in a letter to Camerarius, July 17, 1575, speaks of 
"the shameful arrogant sophistry and babbling of Ramus." 



PETER RAMUS 



113 



who was an Aristotelian, opposed his coming. Every 
where Aristotelianism tried to keep him out. Finally 
another friend got him back as professor in the Royal 
College in 1571. But it was not for long. His inveterate 
enemy, Carpenterius, followed him relentlessly. Then 
came the awful massacre of St. Bartholomew, in August, 
1572. 

He might have escaped it had he listened to his friend, 
Bishop Montluc, who, though a Catholic, was Evangeli- 
cally inclined. Montluc wanted him to go to Poland 
with him, and offered him large pay if he would go there 
so as to promote the election of Henry of France as King 
of Poland. But when Ramus found that Montluc's only 
object was to utilize his superior persuasive eloquence 
to dazzle the Poles, he declined, saying, as he did so, "An 
orator ought, above everything else, to be an honest man" 
— that is, eloquence should never be made a mercenary 
thing. Besides, to elevate a bigoted Catholic to the throne 
of Poland was a task for which he had no sympathy. 
Montluc started August 17, and Ramus, if he had gone 
with him, would have escaped the massacre, which oc- 
curred August 24. And it was not until the third day of 
the massacre that his turn came. And then it was rather 
a piece of petty, private revenge on the part of Carpen- 
tarius, than the result of the general massacre. For 
Ramus had friends; yes, he had in his possession a safe 
conduct of the king. 

But, at last, hired assassins forced their way into his 
study on the fifth floor of his college. As they entered 
he was in the act of prayer. As he rose from his knees 
his venerable dignity as an old man, for a moment, over- 
awed the assassins. As he could hope for no mercy, he 
spent the few moments, while they pillaged his room, in 
prayer, thus, "O, my God, against Thee, Thee only have I 

8 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



sinned and done this evil in Thy sight. Thy judgments 
are justice and truth. Have mercy on me and pardon 
these wretched men, O God, for they know not what they 
do." The leader of the band then, with frightful im- 
precations, shot him in the head, and long after bullet 
marks could be seen in the wall. Then another plunged 
his sword into his body. Then the inhuman brutes seized 
the half-lifeless body and dragged it to and fro on the 
floor. Years afterward visitors to the college of Presles, 
when shown the room where the greatest of its presidents 
had been so barbarously treated, were wont to express 
surprise at the blood-stained floors in terms similar to 
Lady Macbeth : "Who would have thought the old man 
had so much blood in him." His body was then flung 
from the window of his room and fell into the courtyard 
of the college five stories below. Furious students, urged 
on by merciless professors, tied cords to his legs and 
dragged the body through the streets to the river Seine, 
where a surgeon cut off the head and the trunk was 
thrown into the river, but it was again drawn ashore and 
literally hacked to pieces. His friend, Lambricius, when 
he heard these atrocious details of his death, was pros- 
trated with grief and terror, so that he immediately took 
to his bed and died in a few days. It was one of the 
most horrible deaths of that horrible massacre, and was 
all due to Carpentarius. 

Such was the tragic fate of the great philosopher who 
attempted to reform the philosophy of the sixteenth 
century. Calvin, the reformer, died in his bed a natural 
death. But Ramus, the reformer, died awfully as a 
martyr for his Reformed faith. Of the 2,000 martyred 
Huguenots at Paris in the massacre of St. Bartholomew, 
Coligny and Ramus were the greatest. Thus perished 
the mightiest intellect and noblest spirit of France in that 



PETER RAMUS 



115 



century. Years before, when comparing his lot with 
Socrates, he said : "Only the hemlock is wanting." Alas ! 
a more cruel fate than Socrates befel him. 

And now what has all this to do with the Heidelberg 
catechism. It has nothing to do with the composition, 
for Ramus did not get to Heidelberg until six years after 
the publication of the catechism. And yet, from this sub- 
ject, we get an important light thrown backward on the 
catechism. It reveals to us this interesting fact, that the 
two main authors of our catechism were on opposite sides 
in this Ramus' controversy. Ursinus, with most of the 
university faculty, was Aristotelian. On the other hand, 
Olevianus, with Tremellius and others were Ramists. 
And what does this signify. It shows this that Ursinus 
and Olevianus were of two different types of mind. In 
Ursinus the analytic was prominent, in Olevianus the 
synthetic. And the Heidelberg catechism was the- mature 
result of the combination of two differing types of 
mind. Ursinus clearly shows the analytic in his works, 
for in them he sometimes carries it almost toward the 
extremes of the schoolmen. But Olevianus revealed that 
in him the analytic was limited by the practical ends in 
view. Cuno says : "Olevianus emphasized the practical, 
and, therefore, became a Ramist. Ursinus, on the other 
hand, was a student far from active life and of a rather 
melancholy temperament. Therefore, he became an Aris- 
totelian." This difference almost led, on one occasion, to 
an open breach about answer 35 of our catechism. But 
God's grace prevented it. As Rev. Mr. Krafft, of Elberfeld, 
one of the best German Reformed historians of the last 
century, says: "They are a prominent illustration of 
the way in which God takes persons of different char- 
acters and gifts and makes them useful to the Church." 
We could go further than that, and say that they reveal 



Ii6 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



the greater value of the Heidelberg, because in it the 
individual pecularities of their different type of genius 
were blended. 

But before we can take this up we must pause a 
moment to study the controversy between Ramus and 
the Aristotelians. There have always been two types of 
thought, which were only the reflection of two different 
types of mind. The one emphasized the inward, the other 
the outward; the one emphasized the idea, the other the 
form of the idea. These two types were called, in classic 
times, the Platonic and the Aristotelian. The Aristotelian 
finally gained the victory, and on it the Roman Catholic 
Church is built. The scholasticism of the Middle Ages 
is mainly Aristotelian dialectic applied to Christian truth. 
One of the church fathers said the church would not have 
had so many dogmas if Aristotle had written less. In 
the reformation Luther protested against Aristotle. Mel- 
ancthon said : "In Aristotelianism one looses himself," 
and yet he used the Aristotelian methods, though modi- 
fied somewhat. 

Now against all this Ramus led the opposition in his 
day. He claimed that not merely was a reformation in 
religion necessary, but also a reformation in that which 
was underlying religion — namely, in the very method of 
man's thinking. And here Ramus was right. There 
was need of a new philosophy. For later Protestantism, 
by applying the Aristotelian methods to its theology, ran 
out into a scholasticism of its own in supralapsarianism 
in the Reformed Church, and dead orthodoxy in the 
Lutheran at end of sixteenth and beginning of seven- 
teenth century. All this Ramus aimed to prevent. As 
Punjer says: "Ramus aimed at vitalizing the purely 
formal dialectics of his time by connecting them with 
rhetoric. He also proposed giving up the hair-splittings 



«n3-n'H» : 

nTJPtr . ngoAil :: 

AO*! : foqc^gn : A'V ^'"J^OV : 
AHAA9"9 D : RUIl*-*©' : 

tlttCS: ■ (D^ flT 0 : oR'i'TVy : nA-IJ^l : 

IS!9&; 

The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Amharic 
language. See pages 14-15 and 31-35. 



PETER RAMUS 



117 



produced by Aristotelianism by omitting them and making 
logic more practical. For this he received the nickname 
of utilitarian. He claimed that the proper emphasis was 
not on the form of the idea as much as the idea itself, 
and that the proper method was to go from idea to idea 
and not the merely word-for-word method of Aristotle." 

Ramus, in all this, meant well. He undertook a great 
task when he determined to give Christianity a new phi- 
losophy, which was, indeed, greatly needed. But it was 
too great a task even for him. Such a task required a 
giant mind, a master mind, which his lighter Celtic cast 
of mind and his brilliant oratory seem to have prevented 
him from attaining. So that there was an element of 
truth in the charge of his enemies that his logic had 
degenerated into rhetoric,* or that he taught nothing 
new, but had to use the methods of Aristotle in curtailing 
Aristotle. The truth is that it has taken centuries to get 
a Protestant philosophy, and it is a question whether it 
has yet been found in a full comprehensive form. Let 
us pause a moment to note the philosophies that have 
come up. Soon after Ramus came Descartes, with his 
philosophy of doubt; then Spinoza, with his philosophy 
of pantheism. Bacon came with his philosophy of in- 
duction, a genuine product of Protestantism, for Cath- 
olicism would never have allowed such freedom of rea- 
soning. Ramus did not seem to have revealed that deep 
sagacity that enabled Bacon and Descartes to strike at 
the very roots of the Aristotelian and Romish system. 
Kant then came with his emphasis on idealism; Locke, 
with his sensualism. Hegel resolved all logic into thesis, 
antithesis, synthesis. In our day evolution has tried to 

* "The result of his ratiocination was to give a truthworthy 
appearance to conclusions, which they did not possess because 
they were founded on purely arbitrary premises." 



n8 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



make thought and all its methods a development. Phil- 
osophies have come and gone. Men have lived and died 
seeking the true philosophy. Do you wonder, therefore, 
that Ramus failed in producing a completely defined sys- 
tem of philosophy and logic in his brief day. He was not 
the man to do it. And the time had not yet come for it 
to be done. But one thing he did and it was a great thing. 
For before human reason could advance, it was necessary 
that it be released from its fetters. And Ramus shook 
Aristotelianism, which was the main pillar of the Cath- 
olic Church. Yes, he shook it to its very foundation, 
even though, Samson-like, he brought it down on his own 
head to his death. And his death, like Samson's, was 
the crowning glory of his life. 

And now, at last, we are ready to look at the influ- 
ence of all this on our Heidelberg Catechism. It has 
already been shown, in a previous chapter, that our 
catechism is largely the matured result of other cate- 
chisms gone before. We now see, from this topic, that 
it is also the matured result of two different types of 
mind. In Ursinus the analytic method is prominent. 
Without a question he was the great logician of the 
Heidelberg faculty in his day, and he seems to have been 
looked upon as such. One sees traces of his Aristotelian 
methods more in his Commentary on the catechism than 
in the catechism itself. His Commentary on the catechism, 
excellent as it is, is sometimes cast in a scholastic mould. 
He also, as is the general charge against Aristotelians, 
went too far into the mere logic of the thing, often further 
than was necessary. It is not for us to criticize him, — that 
was the philosophy of his day. In his earlier life, when 
he composed the catechism, he shows less of this ratio- 
cinative method. But we have his Aristotelianism to 
thank, for it gave the clear logic to the catechism, both 



PETER RAMUS 



119 



in the logical connection of the questions and the clear 
statement of its answers ; only he does not carry it in its 
results to scholastic extremes. None of his writings, be- 
fore the publication of our catechism, reveal the rigid 
argumentation into which he was forced by the bitter con- 
troversies forced on him by the Lutherans. Then he 
showed his teeth in logic. We have him, therefore, to 
thank for the clearness and logical order of the cate- 
chism. Because of his analytic mind, nothing extraneous 
or illogical was allowed to enter into it. 

And now let us turn to the other side. There was 
need of some curb to Aristotelianism. Why is it that 
the Heidelberg catechism is in character so different from 
the Shorter Westminster catechism? That more repre- 
sents the scholastic type of doctrine, though, of course, 
not nearly so much as Beza and his supralapsarianism. 
The reason for the superiority of the Heidelberg was 
because the Aristotelian methods were held in check by 
a utilitarianism like that of Ramus — checked by a Ramist 
type of mind. This was found in Olevianus, who, though 
not yet a Ramist when the catechism was composed, was 
of that synthetic type of mind, that as soon as Ramus 
appeared he accepted his views. We have a copy of the 
Logic of Olevianus, as he later taught it at the uni- 
versity of Herborn, and it agrees with the principles of 
Ramus. By this synthetic type of mind the Heidelberg 
is prevented from rambling off into unnecessary by-paths 
of doctrine. And, again, many of the questions of the 
Heidelberg are utilitarian, like the Ramists. "What 
profit does this doctrine mean to thee?" is often asked. 
We believe that a good part of this check on Aristotelian- 
ism was due to Olevianus, although not all; for as we 
have before said, Ursinus was more practical in his 
younger days before controversy roused the logical dia- 



120 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 

lectics, which he used with such power against the high- 
Lutherans. We see in the catechism that the form is 
kept secondary to the idea. An answer is never put in 
for the sake of the form, but for the sake of the idea 
or truth that is in it. One realizes this when you com- 
pare it with Ursinus' earlier catechisms. All these things 
were emphasized by the synthetic type of mind in Ole- 
vianus, which later found expression in the Ramist phi- 
losophy. 

And so, finally, Ursinus and Olevianus acted as a foil 
to each other. They supplemented each other. They 
were complimentary minds. How fortunate it was, that 
in the providence of God, two such different men should 
be brought together to become the men to compose the 
catechism. The one balanced the other, and out of both 
we have a poise — a perfection in the catechism, that, as 
has been well said, "the writings of neither give," or 
that has not been reached by any other catechism. No 
wonder, then, that the Heidelberg catechism has been 
popular, and it ought to be retained because of its 
popularity. 



FT 



The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Arabic 
language. See page 14. 



PART III 

THE AUTHORS OF THE CATECHISM 



ELECTOR FREDERICK III 



CHAPTER I 

the; conversion of elector Frederick hi to the 
reformed faith 

How and when did Elector Frederick III of the Pa- 
latinate become Reformed. The answer to these ques- 
tions has been very difficult for two reasons: 

1. The different historians of that period are not, 
by any means, in agreement. 

2. Frederick, himself, makes it somewhat doubtful 
by his varying expressions. 

We propose to take up this subject and carefully fol- 
low it, step by step. The chronological order of events 
has been too much neglected by historians, so that the 
story has become largely a jumble of facts, confusing 
to the reader and often unjust to the history. We pro- 
pose to date all the events as they take place, and thus 
we can follow what must prove an important and inter- 
esting study, as we watch him, step by step, leave the 
Lutheran faith and become Reformed. 

This subject divides itself into two main parts: 

1. The reign of Elector Otto Henry of the Palat- 
inate, Frederick's predecessor. 

2. The early years of Elector Frederick's reign. 

123 



124 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



I. THE REIGN OE ELECTOR OTTO HENRY 

We must first correct a false impression that many 
readers of this history have gained, because its historians 
have not kept the chronology of it clear. It will be 
somewhat startling to some to learn that this great battle 
between the Lutherans and Reformed in the Palatinate 
had been largely fought out before ever Frederick III 
comes upon the scene and Olevianus and Ursinus become 
prominent. The reign of Frederick's predecessor, Otto 
Henry, was full of pregnant events which prepared the 
way for his transition. 

Elector Otto Henry was a Lutheran, but a Lutheran 
of a liberal type, — he was, above all, a humanistic Lu- 
theran, — that is, he was a humanist more than a Lutheran. 
He was a devoted Protestant, but he cared more for 
humanism, with its education and its art, than he did for 
narrow denominationalism and mere confessionalism. 
Under the broad and liberal rule of such a man, there 
appeared four influences that prepared the way for the 
entrance of the Reformed doctrines into the Palatinate. 

The first was educational. Otto Henry's great aim 
was the enlightenment of his people by humanism and 
religion. As a humanist his great zeal was for the in- 
troduction of art and education. As a sign of his love 
for art, he added to the castle at Heidelberg what was 
called the "Otto Henry Building," beautiful to-day, even 
in its ruined condition. But it was education that he 
especially stressed. The university of Heidelberg, which, 
by its recent change from Catholicism to Protestantism, 
had been in a lamentably low condition, he rejuvenated. 
It had had few and mediocre professors and also few 
students, especially in theology. To bring it up, he called 
professors of fame and ability who would attract stu- 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 125 



dents. He said he would bring it up if it took his last 
cent, and he did what his predecessors had failed to do, 
bring it out of the scholasticism of the Middle Ages. 
And he did this without taking into consideration whether 
the professors were Lutherans. Thus he tried to get 
Peter Martyr and Wolfgang Musculus, both Reformed, 
notwithstanding that Brenz, the Lutheran reformer, of 
Wurtemberg, warned him against mice (Musculus) and 
rats. But both declined. However, a number of Re- 
formed slipped in. Two Reformed professors especially 
appeared prominently at this time. The first was Peter 
Boquin, the other, Thomas Erastus. 

Peter Boquin was a Frenchman by birth. He had 
been a prior of the Carmelite order in the Catholic 
Church, but had become Protestant, and had therefore 
been compelled to flee from France to Germany. He 
became the successor of Calvin as pastor at Strasburg. 
From there he came to Heidelberg, March, 1557, and 
lectured as theological professor for a year on trial, but 
was so satisfactory that the next year he was made 
regular professor.* He it was, who, long before Olevianus 
and Ursinus came upon the scene, bore the brunt of the 
controversy for the Reformed. He has not, it seems to us, 
by any means received the credit he should have received. 
Even though he was after their arrival somewhat sup- 
planted by the two youths, Ursinus and Olevianus (for 
so they must have seemed beside this hoary old professor 
of theology), that should not cause us to fail in giving 
him the credit for being the great champion of the Re- 
formed in those early days. He it was who championed 
them in debate, he it was who published book after book 

* Elector Otto Henry had called Blaarer, the Reformed re- 
former of southern Germany, before Boquin was selected, but he 
declined. 



i 2 6 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



defending them against the Lutherans. We have been 
collecting his works and have been surprised at his literary 
activity for the Reformed, when it was somewhat dan- 
gerous to be outspoken in their favor. 

Thomas Erastus was a Swiss and came to Heidelberg 
as professor of medicine. When the professorship of 
medicine became vacant, Otto Henry asked his private 
physician, who, among German physicians, had the 
greatest reputation. The latter replied that Erastus, 
who was at that time private physician to some German 
prince, was the man. And Otto Henry at once called 
him. As soon as he came, May 2, 1558, he became the 
moving spirit of the whole university, and was soon, as 
we shall see, made its rector. Erastus, though he ex- 
celled in medicine, was also versed in theology. Avoiding 
the devious windings in thought, to which many theo- 
logians are inclined, he went straight to the point, and 
both in debate and in his published works, he went to the 
root of the matter with such great clearness that it 
was hard for his high-Lutheran opponents to answer 
him. 

Of these two, Boquin was the first to become promi- 
nent for the Reformed. Besides these two Reformed 
professors, Otto Henry placed other Reformed pro- 
fessors in the different departments of the university. 
To these might be added a member of the court, its sec- 
retary, Cirler, who, as early as 1556, was named "the 
great Zwinglian." So that when Frederick took the 
rule, there were quite a number of them there. 

The second preparatory influence under Otto Henry 
was political. Broad-minded prince that he was, he ad- 
mitted into his realm persons of other faiths than Lu- 
theran. Of special significance was his permission to 
the Reformed refugees from Frankford to settle in the 



KERESZTYEN 

CATECHISMS 

AZAZ: 

A' KERESZTYENI HITNEK 
AGAZATIRA 
KERDESEK ES FELELETEK ALTAI. 
V A L 6 

ROVID TANITAS, 

MELT 

A' Kerdesek es Feleletek summas ertelmek- 
kel, es az azokban foglaltatott dolgokat 
felfejtegetd kcrdezkedesekkel, 's nemely 
sziikseges magyarazatokkal , a' Szent lras- 
beli Bizonysagoknak egeszcn valo Icirasa- 
val ; vegre a" Catcchizal asra valo hasano* 
tltmutalassal 

EZ UJ FORMABAN 

KIBOCSATTATOTT. 



NYOMATOTT DEBRECZENBEN, 
1 8 4 4. 



The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Hungarian 
language. See pages 17-18. 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 127 



town of Frankenthal. He permitted this, notwithstand- 
ing that Melancthon in 1555 expressed the fear that 
the introduction of refugees of a different faith from 
Lutheranism would probably lead to friction, a prophecy 
which came true in Otto Henry's life just before he 
died, as the high-Lutherans began bitterly attacking the 
Reformed. 

A third preparatory influence was the liturgical. 
The Lutherans of Germany have always been mainly 
of two- kinds. North Germany was high, south Ger- 
many was low. This was because parts of south Ger- 
many had been converted from Catholicism by the Re- 
formed. Otto Henry was a south German and he re- 
vealed his low-Lutheran tendency by ordering certain 
reforms in the cultus, which made the worship more 
like the Reformed in its simplicity. In his Church 
Order of 1556, he leaves out the rite of exorcism, or 
blowing away of the devil, common among the northern 
Lutherans, even though he had had it in his previous 
Church Order of Pfalz-Neuburg. He ordered the altars 
out of the churches, all except the main altar, which 
he left, so that there would be an altar for the celebra- 
tion of the Lord's Supper. A reform that created the 
most sensation, was his order that pictures should be 
removed from the churches. This met with so much 
opposition, that it was only partially carried out. In- 
deed, Otto Henry found it necessary on one occasion, 
in order to prevent disorder, to appear personally when 
the pictures were taken out of the Holy Ghost Church 
at Heidelberg, and declare to the people that they would 
not be cast out of the other churches. In all this he 
was not going beyond Lutheranism, for his neighbor, 
the Duke of Wurtemberg, was against altars and idola- 
trous pictures in the churches, and his Lutheranism was 



128 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



never impugned. But all these things only prepared 
the way for Frederick. Because of it, when the latter 
began his reforms to make the churches Reformed, it 
did not provoke so much opposition as it would have 
done. 

A fourth preparatory influence was personal. There 
is no great theological controversy that does not have 
personalities connected with it in some way or other. 
And sometimes controversies degenerate into mere per- 
sonalities. But in this controversy great principles were 
at stake. However, personalities entered very largely 
into it. 

The two leaders in the personal controversy were 
Hesshuss and Klebitz. Tileman Hesshuss was a high- 
Lutheran zealot, who came to Heidelberg in 1557, as 
professor of theology and superintendent or head of 
the Church of the Palatinate. Of a domineering, am- 
bitious disposition he was admirably suited to provoke 
friction. Finding so many Reformed in the Palatinate, 
he felt himself called upon to rid the Palatinate of them 
and make it strictly Lutheran. In a word, he sought to 
be the Lutheran Reformer of the Palatinate! On the 
other hand, William Klebitz, a Reformed, was just the 
one to nettle a man like Hesshuss, for he was self-as- 
sertive, if attacked, and the over-zealousness of youth 
led him sometimes to overstep the bounds of propriety. 
He was an assistant preacher at the Holy Ghost Church 
at Heidelberg. As we now take up these quarrels be- 
tween this ultra-Lutheran and this zealous Reformed, it 
is to be noticed that many of the quarrels either took 
place or had their beginning in Otto Henry's time, be- 
fore ever Frederick appeared at Heidelberg. 

The first outbreak occurred in 1558, in regard to a 
beautiful marble monument that Otto Henry had erected 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 129 



in the choir of the Holy Ghost Church at Heidelberg, 
as a memorial to himself, for he was childless. This 
monument was after the fashion of humanism, which 
combined classical with scriptural figures. It had on it 
angels and seven virgins rather naked. Otto Henry had 
first consulted Hesshuss, who approved his monument. 
He told the Elector he was but following the example of 
other kings and princes. Hesshuss also favored it because 
is was against the Reformed ideas of simplicity in the 
church buildings. But when the Elector asked the other 
ministers, Flinner opposed it, because it was placed in the 
choir of the Holy Ghost Church just where the com- 
municants would receive the Lord's supper. And besides, 
it was inconsistent with Otto Henry's recent action in 
having the pictures put out of the church. Otto Henry 
found that several other of the ministers, among them, 
Klebitz, took offence at the monument. So he had the 
naked figures removed. Hesshuss took great offence at 
all this, and as Flinner soon after left for Strasburg, he 
took out his revenge on Klebitz. This was the beginning 
of the quarrel that was to make the Palatinate ultimately 
Reformed. 

The second controversy was about the cultus. Kleb- 
itz, angered at Hesshuss' attacks, retorted by bringing 
charges against the high-Lutheran innovations of Hess- 
huss. Hesshuss was so intense in his devotion to, yes, 
almost worship of, Luther, that when the Elector wanted 
a new hymnbook prepared, like the Bonn hymnbook, 
which contained hymns by other reformers, as Melanc- 
thon and Bucer, Hesshuss wanted only Luther's hymns 
in it. He opposed Psalmns because they were used 
by the Reformed. Hesshuss also introduced Latin 
singing by the school children, instead of German. 
He also introduced some new high church ceremonies 

9 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



at the Lord's Supper. Thus he showed superstitious 
reverence for the elements: he had a napkin held 
under the wafer so that none of it should fall on 
the floor. That part of the bread and wine left over 
from communion he treated as especially sacred. And 
when it happened that he had not consecrated enough 
of the elements, he went all over the form of consecra- 
tion again. He also, at the communion, turned his back 
on the congregation while in prayer, thus acting as if he 
were a priest. Again, the low-Lutheran catechism of 
Brenz, which had been commonly used in the Palatinate, 
Hesshuss wanted to have set aside and Luther's cate- 
chism used in its stead. 

The third incident was the case of Hexamer. He 
had been pastor of the church at Edenkoben, and in 
the church visitation of 1556 had been charged with 
Zwinglianism and Schwenkfelderism. The case hung 
fire until it was called before the consistory, November 
8, 1558, and he was examined. The report on the case 
drawn up by Hesshuss. Diller, the low-Lutheran court 
preacher of the Elector, and Klebitz refused to sign it, 
because it contained some things extraneous to the case, 
and especially because of its denunciation of Zwingli and 
Calvin. This refusal greatly angered such an autocat as 
Hesshuss, and he charged Klebitz with Zwinglianism and 
Osiandrianism. As a result, the Elector ordered both 
Hesshuss and Klebitz to bring to him a confession of 
their faith, which each did at the end of 1558. 

Finally came the last incident which began just two 
weeks before the death of Elector Otto Henry (which 
occurred February 12, 1559), and was not settled till 
after his death. A scholar from Groningen, Holland, 
named Sylvius, wanted to get a degree of doctor from 
the university of Heidelberg. Hesshuss, at that time 



EL 

CATECISMO 

DE 

HEIDELBERG 

PDBLICADO POR JUAN AVENTROT 
EN 1628 

AnORA FIELMENTE REIMPRESO. 



MADRID. 

LIBRERIA NACIONAL Y EXTRANJERA 
59. Jacometrezo 59. 

1885. 



The title-page of the Heidelberg catechism in the Spanish 
language. See pages 27-31. 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 131 



dekan or head of the theological faculty, tried to pre- 
vent Sylvius from getting an opportunity. He was es- 
pecially offended with Sylvius' theses for the doctorate. 
He wanted Sylvius to include in them denunciations of 
the Zwinglians. But Sylvius declared such things were 
out of place in a scientific treatise. So Hesshuss charged 
Sylvius with heresy, with being a Zwinglian. But Syl- 
vius found a defender in Boquin, and also in Erastus, 
who was at that time rector of the university. 

Hesshuss appealed to the Elector against granting the 
degree. But the university asked that it be sent back 
to the university senate. So Hesshuss attacked the uni- 
versity in the severest and most abusive terms. Before 
the councilors of the Elector he raged against "the phy- 
sicians and lawyers of the faculty, who, he said, studied 
the Bible very little, went to Church and the sacra- 
ments seldom, and who had not even seen the Augsburg 
Confession." He also attacked Klebitz, who happened 
to be Sylvius' special friend. All this thoroughly 
roused the university, and they gave Sylvius the degree in 
March, 1559, about a month after Otto Henry had died. 
This was the more remarkable, for at that time uni- 
versities were strictly denominational. No Lutheran 
university gave a degree to a Reformed or on the basis 
of Reformed theses, and vice versa. That Heidelberg, 
a Lutheran university, should do so to a Reformed, and 
allow Reformed theses to be approved, was an un- 
heard of thing. Hesshuss was right as to the custom 
in the past. This giving of the degree to a Reformed 
was then looked upon as committing the university in 
that direction. 

The university no longer invited Hesshuss to the 
sessions of the university senate. For Hesshuss had de- 
clared that the degree of doctor, which they had given 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



Sylvius, was not worth three dollars, as they had given 
it to a blasphemer. Only the departure of Hesshuss for 
Wesel, his early home, on matters of family business, 
made an end for the time to these alarming polemics. 

II. The Early Years of Elector Frederick III 

A. THE YEAR 1559. 

Such was the state of affairs when Elector Frederick 
III came to the throne (February 28, 1559), about two 
weeks after the death of Otto Henry.* It was very 
evident that he had a severe problem on his hands, 
for his court, university and churches were divided 
into three parties. Hesshuss led the high-Lutherans 
and was . supported by a number of ministers, and by 
two prominent members of the court, Chancellor Mink- 
witz and Judge von Benningen. The Melancthonians 
were led by the peaceful Diller, the court-preacher, and 
Count George of Erbach, both of whom desired to 
mediate things so that there should be peace. The Re- 
formed were led by Boquin as professor of theology, 
and Erastus, the head of the university, and also sup- 
ported by a number of other professors in other de- 
partments of the university. In the court they found 
strong support in the other two Counts of Erbach, in 
Cirler, the secretary of the court, and especially in Zule- 
ger, a Bohemian, who was soon made the head of the 
consistory. The high-handed domineering and abuse of 

* One of the Lutheran princes declared that he had pro- 
tested to Otto Henry, not long before his death, against his ap- 
pointment of so many Reformed, and that Otto Henry had de- 
clared to him that he would dismiss those that were in the 
university and court. But his death intervened too quickly for 
anything to be done. 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 133 



Hesshuss had been driving the last two parties, the Me- 
lancthonians and the Reformed, together against him 
and against the narrowness of the high-Lutherans. 

The all important question was, with which one of 
these three parties would Elector Frederick III ally him- 
self, for the law of Germany was "Cujus regio, ejus 
religio," that meant "as was the religion of the prince, 
so was the religion of the people." Frederick was a 
Lutheran, having been converted from Catholicism to it 
by his wife. And there were at that time several strong 
influences very close to him, to make him a high-Lutheran. 
His wife was an intense high-Lutheran, and, as she shows 
in her letters, warned him against the subtle influence of 
Zwinglianism at Heidelberg. His son-in-law, Duke John 
Frederick of Saxony, was the leader of the high-Lu- 
therans of Germany. The latter wrote to Frederick 
when he ascended the throne at Heidelberg that he hoped 
he would root out the Zwinglianism and Calvinism,* which 
his predecessor had allowed to enter the Palatinate. 
Frederick replied, declaring himself as against the 
sects (the Zwinglians, which were usually included by 
the Lutherans in that word), but he did not think it 
right to condemn them unheard, as even the worst 
criminals were accorded a hearing. In this we get a 
glimpse of Frederick's great fairness of mind and also 
his freedom from narrowness. 

And yet, while he was a Lutheran, he was a low- 
Lutheran or Melancthonian. For at the Frankford re- 
cess of 1558, he had signed the formula drawn up, which 
was low-Lutheran. And he had signed the Altered Augs- 
burg Confession, which was the symbol of the Melanc- 
thonians. The first Augsburg Confession of 1530 was 
high-Lutheran. The Altered Augsburg Confession of 

* Which he called "devil's dung." 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



1540 was low-Lutheran. The first declared in its ar- 
ticle on the Lord's Supper that the body of Christ was 
distributed at the Lord's Supper, the latter that it was 
only exhibited at the Lord's Supper.* Frederick had thus 
accepted these low-Lutheran creeds. But there was noth- 
ing un-Lutheran in that, for so had at that time all the 
Lutheran princes of Germany, only one or two objecting 
to them as not high enough. 

And in addition to this, Frederick had been an irenic 
Lutheran. This is shown by an incident that occurred 
just after he became Elector. Gallus had, January 7, 
1559, sent him from Ratisbon, an intensely Lutheran 
book full of attacks on the Reformed. Frederick, when 
he found out its character, did not read it, and bade 
him cease from all such strife. What Frederick most 
desired was peace, and this is to be especially noted as 
the key to all his later acts. He wanted that even more 
than he did Lutheranism. Therefore, with any Luther- 
anism that spent itself in mere polemics, he was entirely 
eat of sympathy. In doing so, he was only following 
his predecessor, Otto Henry, who, at the colloquy 
at Worms, 1557, had taken the position that Zwinglianism 
and the sects ought not to be condemned unheard. And 
there was an especial reason why Frederick wanted 
unity and peace just at that time. The Catholics had all 
become united again at the Council of Trent. And Fred- 
erick felt that the most important thing for Protestantism 

* In the first, the article on the Lord's Supper read thus : 
"Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that the body and 
blood of Christ are truly present and are distributed to those 
who eat the Lord's Supper, and they disapprove of those who 
teach otherwise." In the latter, it read : "Concerning the Lord's 
Supper, they teach that with the bread and wine are truly ex- 
hibited the body and blood of Christ to those who eat of the 
Lord's Supper. 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 135 



to do was to get together and present an unbroken front 
to Catholicism. So that the keynote of his life was unity 
and peace, even before Lutheranism. And his irenic 
disposition had been broadening out, for his sympathy 
had already gone out to other faiths as the Reformed, 
especially in France. There is no truth, says Kluck- 
hohn, his biographer, that he had had a French pension. 
But he evidently had already been impressed by the edu- 
cation of the French, for he had before this sent his 
oldest son to France, at the university of Bourges, where 
Olevianus had tried to save him from death by drowning, 
but in vain. And his third son, John Casimir, he had 
sent to the French court, where he remained until Fred- 
erick ascended the throne at Heidelberg. As these boys 
were Protestant, they would there come into contact 
with the Reformed. As a result, Frederick had his 
sympathies early enlisted in the sufferings of the Hugue- 
nots. But still Frederick was a Lutheran at his acces- 
sion, and this he shows by one of his earliest acts. A 
month after it, he called Lutheran ministers to fill va- 
cant parishes. And a little later he called a Lutheran, 
Einhorn, as professor of theology in the university. 

But Frederick soon left Heidelberg. Having at- 
tended to the most necessary affairs, he went in June to 
Ratisbon to be publicly invested with the Electorate. 
But before doing so, he laid the theses, which Hesshuss 
and Klebitz had handed in at the end of 1558, before 
his theologians for examination. He then imposed 
silence on both. At Ratisbon the strongest kind of in- 
fluence was brought to bear on him to become high- 
Lutheran. Indeed a rumor went abroad on account of 
a careless remark of his about his son-in-law, John Fred- 
erick, that he was inclining there to high-Lutheranism. 
This greatly alarmed the low-Lutherans or Melancthon- 



136 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



ians. But the rumor proved groundless, for there, as 
everywhere else, he emphasized the necessity of union 
on the part of the Protestants over against the Catholics. 
His hope was, that the time would soon come when the 
theological strifes among Protestants would cease. But 
this was not to be fulfilled, for he found its opposite 
true when he returned to Heidelberg at the end of 
August. 

For, during his absence, the controversy between 
Hesshuss and Klebitz, had, in spite of his prohibition, 
broken out with greater bitterness than ever. While 
Hesshuss was away at Wesel, Klebitz had seized the op- 
portunity to offer theses to the university, so as to get a 
bachelor's degree in theology. For, says the historian 
Seisen, Klebitz, taking cognizance of Hesshuss' first de- 
feat in the Sylvius' case ; in order to make himself safer, 
sought thus to be made a member of the university. His 
theses, which were presented April 4, were a defense 
of the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and by 
April 15 he had received the degree from the university. 
When Hesshuss returned, he attacked Klebitz and his fol- 
lowers from the pulpit. Then he called Klebitz before 
him to give answer for what he had done. Klebitz asked 
him to show him his errors and teach him better. Kleb- 
itz then enlarged his theses and gave them to him, so 
that he might show him his errors. But Hesshuss, 
though often asked by Klebitz for a reply, avoided it. 
He sought to injure him by spreading the matter abroad. 
For he sent the theses to Moerlin and Stoessel, the high- 
Lutheran theologians of the Duke of Saxony, that they 
might condemn them. He wanted the university to pub- 
licly recall the degree, and they did not do so. As the 
university, by giving the degree, had given Klebitz the 
right to deliver lectures, Hesshuss, lest Klebitz would 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 137 



fill the Palatinate with his heresies, was the more alarmed. 
And when the university would not withdraw the per- 
mission, he denounced it as "a hellish, devilish, cruel, 
cursed and terrible thing." He also railed against 
Klebitz from the pulpit, as a Zwinglian and an Arian.* 

Klebitz, with his youthful impetuosity, was not the 
one to refuse to reply. And so this controversy broke 
out into a tremendous blaze during Frederick's absence. 
For not merely were Hesshuss and Klebitz attacking each 
other from the pulpit, but the other ministers began 
taking sides and preaching polemics, and the strife 
threatened to spread out among the people, most of whom 
were against Klebitz. 

The Elector had left as his governor in his absence 
the mild Count George of Erbach, a Melancthonian, who 
greatly wanted peace. As he feared that the strife 
might lead to riots among the people, he called all the 
ministers, including Hesshuss and Klebitz, before him, 
August 4, 1559. He declared that Hesshuss ought not 
to send Klebitz' theses to other lands, and, with tears in 
his eyes, ordered them both to keep quiet in the pulpit 
until the Elector's return. But even in the presence of 
the Count there was an outburst of this strife. Hesshuss 
claimed the right not only to shut out an assistant, Kleb- 
itz, from the celebration of the Lord's Supper, because he 
said he was not true to its doctrine. But he also threat- 
ened the Count with the ban and also threatened to 
censure the court preacher, Diller, who had roused his 
aversion by his defence of the Frankford Recess. And 
when the Count asked if he believed, like the book of 

* Indeed, one writer says he so thundered against him, us- 
ing so often the name of the devil, that one could almost im- 
agine they could hear in his sermon the rushing of thousands 
of devils. 



138 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



the Cardinal of Augsburg, that the body of our Lord 
was received at the Lord's Supper "with the mouth and 
stomach," he replied, "with the mouth and the heart, 
you are both Zwinglians." Indeed, some historians, as 
Hausser, say that he put the ban on the Count of Erbach. 
For it is to be remembered that the use of the ban 
was not new to Hesshuss. He, in his domineering way 
as a Protestant pope, had already made use of the ban 
in other cities. Thus he had already excommunicated 
two burgomasters in the city of Rostock two years be- 
fore, and for it he had to leave the city. He now pro- 
posed to do the same thing here. His accusation of the 
Count as not a true Lutheran, produced such a sensa- 
tion that the Count felt it necessary to prepare a con- 
fession of his faith, so as to show the people that he was 
truly Lutheran. This he published after having had it 
approved by Melancthon and other theologians. It agreed 
with the Altered Augsburg Confession. 

Such was the state of things when the Elector came 
back from Ratisbon at the end of August. The Elector 
then called Hesshuss and Klebitz before him. He 
asked them to cease the controversy until he could submit 
the case to his own theologians and those of other lands. 
He asked each of them to give him a confession of their 
belief. Klebitz submitted his confession, which was 
openly Reformed on the Lord's Supper, that the body and 
blood of Christ were received spiritually, not corporeally, 
only by faith and not received by unbelievers. Hesshuss, 
on September I, submitted a confession which was high- 
Lutheran, holding that Christ was bodily present in the 
elements and that His body was received with the mouth, 
and not merely by believers, but by unbelievers. Both 
agreed to keep quiet, but Hesshuss was not the one to do 
so. On Sunday, August 29, he attacked Klebitz in a 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 139 



sermon and went so far as to forbid him from perform- 
ing ministerial duties. On September 3, a week-day, 
Klebitz replied in a sermon, defending himself against 
Hesshuss' attacks. Hesshuss replied on September 6, when 
preaching in the Holy Ghost Church at Heidelberg. He 
then put Klebitz under the ban. The ban was very 
severe, — "No church official was to have anything to do 
with him, no one was to receive the sacraments from 
him or to attend his preaching. No sick were to send 
for him to comfort them, no one was to eat with him." 
Hesshuss did this so that Klebitz would be sent away by 
the authorities. It is said that while he was under the 
ban, one of his children died and he had difficulty in get- 
ting it buried. Two days later, two other ministers, 
Velsius and Neser, took part in this controversy from 
the pulpit. The one put Hesshuss under the ban, the other 
called him "a boar who ravaged the Lord's vineyard." 

It was very evident that matters had come to a crisis. 
So Frederick called both Hesshuss and Klebitz, together 
with the other ministers, before him on September 9. 
He threatened them with dismissal if the controversy 
was continued. He lifted the ban from Klebitz and 
tried to make peace by ordering them at the Lord's 
Supper to use the words of the Augsburg Confession. 
For one of the great questions in controversy at that 
time was the exact formula to be used at the Lord's 
Supper. The Lutheran Church has always made the 
words of the Bible used at the Lord's Supper the centre 
of the whole rite. It was therefore very important to 
them that exactly the right words should be used. But 
there was great difference of opinion among them. 
Some wanted the phrase in the bread, others, under 
the bread, others, in with and under and others in addi- 
tion to this, all around the bread, until some of them 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



neared the Catholic statement that the priest holds the 
body of Christ in his hand. So the proper formula to be 
used was important, and Frederick tried to solve it by 
ordering the use of the phrase in the Augsburg Confes- 
sion, which ought to have satisfied all of the Lutherans. 

And just here we may pause to note what is very im- 
portant in this study of Frederick's conversion, that the 
first method adopted by Frederick, in order to produce 
unity, was the use of a formula on the Lord's Supper. 
Frederick tried four methods of harmonizing his church 
of the Palatinate, — first, a formula (1559); second, a 
conference; third, the dismissal of the polemists (1560), 
and fourth, a catechism (1563). It is well to remember 
these different steps as this history proceeds. 

But Hesshuss was not the man to be bound by a 
formula, especially such a one as was in the Altered 
Augsburg Confession, which, he declared, was so broad 
that it could include the Reformed. So, when he, some 
time later, administered the Lord's Supper, he used an- 
other form, a Latin one, that better suited his high- 
Lutheran views. When the Elector called him before 
him for doing so, he plumply declared he would not use 
the formula appointed by the Elector. 

The Elector having supposed that he had brought 
about peace, on the next day, September 10, his court- 
preacher, Diller, in preaching at the Sunday service in 
the Holy Ghost Church, described what had taken place 
and announced from the pulpit that peace was now made, 
that the formula of the Augsburg Confession would be 
used at the Lord's Supper, and that the causes of the 
strife had been set aside until a synod could meet. And 
after that, the Elector and the whole court went to the 
Lord's Supper. It was celebrated after this formula, 
Diller giving the bread and Klebitz the wine. It was, as 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 141 



one writer calls it, a peace-festival. But it did not last. 
That very Sunday afternoon the war began again. For 
one of the ministers, Blasius, preached against Klebitz as 
a false prophet, and three days later Hesshuss preached 
in the same strain. He openly charged the Elector with 
having fallen away from the Augsburg Confession. He 
now, for the first time, called attention to the difference 
between the two Augsburg Confessions. He spoke 
against the Altered Augsburg Confession as so indefinite 
in its statement of the Lord's Supper, that it was nothing 
but "a Polish boot and a broad mantle, under which 
anything could hide, yes, Christ and the devil could con- 
veniently hide together under it." The Elector's order 
for peace he called, "a godless agreement." In doing - 
this, he did not stand alone, but two of the ministers 
stood with him. Thus, on September 15, Neser refuted 
Diller's sermon of the previous Sunday and attacked 
Klebitz as a heretic who ought to be dismissed. Klebitz's 
patience ran out at all this abuse. And it is said that as 
Neser went out of the church, Klebitz seized him and, it 
is said, shook him and called him a liar. And Neser 
goes so far as to charge him with having thrown a 
large stone at him. The report of Frederick says he 
only caused a public excitement in the market. For it 
must be remembered that while Hesshuss was the ag- 
gressor in this controversy, and the more blameworthy, 
yet Klebitz was not entirely free from blame even 
though we as Reformed can not help sympathizing with 
his theological views. Indeed, Klebitz seems to have been 
there so judged by the more conservative Reformed. 
Thus, Erastus in writing to Hardenberg, describes Kle- 
bitz unfavorably, but speaks well of his preaching ability. 
Hesshuss erred in exaggerating his authority and in mak- 
ing himself a Protestant pope. Klebitz erred in the 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



over-impetuosity of youth. 

Matters had now come to a pass when they were 
unendurable. So the Elector called both Hesshuss and 
Klebitz before him on Saturday, September 16, and dis- 
missed them both, in the hope that the controversy 
would now cease, as its leaders were sent away. How- 
ever, a difference in his treatment of these two men is 
to be noticed. Notwithstanding Hesshuss' public denunci- 
ation of him, he gave him a half year's salary ahead, 
but he did not give him a testimonial of approval, which 
Hesshuss wanted. Klebitz, however, received a good 
testimonial from the university and also money for his 
journey, and the Elector's assurance that he would care 
for his family while he was away. Frederick's kinder 
treatment of Klebitz, however, must not, however, be 
laid down to his growing inclination to the Reformed, 
but rather to his great fairness of mind, because he felt 
Hesshuss was the aggressor in this quarrel. This is 
another instance of Frederick's great fairness of temper. 

Klebitz hastened his departure, for the people of 
Heidelberg seem to have been, as a rule, against him. At 
least that is what Melancthon stated to Hardenberg, the 
Melancthonian of Bremen, on January I, 1560, when he 
wrote to him that if he had to leave Bremen, he had 
better not go to Heidelberg, for though he would be 
kindly received by the university, yet the people were 
not of his way of thinking. It is wonderful to see how 
Frederick ultimately brought this city, now strongly Lu- 
theran, around to his Heidelberg catechism in 1563. In 
Klebitz' place, a Reformed minister was appointed, at 
which some members of the court protested, and at once 
received their dismissal. 

Hesshuss also left, but his intensely polemical nature 
brought him into trouble wherever he went. He is 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 143 



called "the man of seven exiles," for seven times he 
was ordered out of the cities where he preached because 
of his quarrelsomeness. Heidelberg was the third place 
that he was compelled to leave. 

After he had dismissed both Hesshuss and Klebitz, 
Frederick did a most important thing, one of the most 
important in this series of events. Two days later (Sep- 
tember 18), he sent his private secretary, Cirler, who 
was married to a niece of Melancthon, to Wittenberg, 
to get the opinion of Melancthon on the best method of 
settling the difficulties in the Palatinate Church. And 
Melancthon's answer came to him November 1. 

This opinion of Melancthon was exceedingly im- 
portant for two reasons : 

1. It was the last public expression of his views 
before he died, for Melancthon died the next year, April 
19, 1560. 

2. Melancthon, usually so irenic, here speaks out on 
some of the vital questions of the day, as he had not 
done. He seems to have been driven to it by the "rage 
of theologians" and by their attacks on him. For once 
he talked back. 

In his Opinion, he replies by suggesting a formula on 
which all should unite, namely : the use of the words 
of the Bible (1 Cor. 10: 16) at the Lord's Supper, that 
the bread was the communion of the body of Christ 
and the wine the communion of His blood. This was 
a very beautiful idea, for the Bible ought to be the 
great harmonizer. The high-Lutherans, however, refused 
to accept this advice of Melancthon. 

But Melancthon went on to explain what is meant 
by the communion of the body of Christ, — that it did 
not mean transubstantiation as the Catholics held ; or, as 
the Lutherans at Bremen, who were just then attacking 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



his supporter and friend, Hardenberg, and who said, 
that the bread was the essential body of Christ; and 
also not as Hesshuss, that the bread was the true body 
of Christ. He said communion meant that by which 
the union with the body of Christ takes place. And 
he added a significant clause, that it occurred not without 
thought, as occurred when mice gnawed at bread. 

Now all this is very significant. First, it is signifi- 
cant that he sets aside the formula used in the Augsburg 
Confession for the Bible formula. In doing this, he is 
going beyond what Frederick had already done. Why 
he did this must be conjectural. Perhaps he felt that 
the phrase in the Augsburg Confession would not be 
acceptable to all Lutherans, indeed had not been to Hess- 
huss. And he may have felt that there was more likeli- 
hood of union on a phrase taken from the Bible. 

Second, And yet Melancthon, in using the phrase, 
"the communion of the body of Christ," went beyond 
strict Lutheranism, "which would have said not the com- 
munion of the body of Christ," but that it is the body 
of Christ. His formula put something between the 
communicant and the body of Christ in the Lord's Sup- 
per, namely, the communion. It is interesting, however, 
to see how the high-Lutherans set Paul's words about 
the Lord's Supper ever against Christ's words. Christ 
said, "This is my body." Paul said, not that it is the 
body, but it is the communion of the body. The high- 
Lutherans looked with some suspicion on Paul's phrase, 
as if his word, "communion," put something in the sac- 
rament between Christ and the communicant. The high- 
Lutherans explained Paul's words by Christ's, the low- 
Lutherans explained Christ's words by Paul's. 

Third, Melancthon, in his Opinion, went farther than 
he usually did. Usually, so irenic, he becomes in it polem- 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 145 



ical and attacks the new doctrine of ubiquity of the 
high-Lutherans. He also suggested the calling of a synod 
to settle the matter. 

The significance of Melancthon's Opinion was, that 
it approved all that Frederick had done. It was favor- 
able to Frederick's low-Lutheranism. And it was recog- 
nized at Frederick's court by the high-Lutherans as a 
blow against them.* On the other hand, nothing, says 
Remling, the historian, was more pleasing to the Re- 
formed in Frederick's court than this "Opinion." Though 
it did not come over entirely to their views, yet it enabled 
them to join with the Melancthonians there against the 
high-Lutherans and thus gain the upper hand with the 
Elector. 

But while Melancthon's Opinion was low-Lutheran, 
Frederick was still a Lutheran. For, in October of that 
year, he ordered his son Christopher to be instructed in 
Luther's catechism. This was the more remarkable, for 
the catechism hitherto used by the low-Lutherans in the 
Palatinate was not Luther's, but Brenz'. And yet now 
Frederick ordered the very catechism for which the high- 
Lutherans fought, to be used for his boy. That does 
not look as if he was Reformed. Another sign was, 
that he wrote to his high-Lutheran son-in-law, John 
Frederick, October 24, 1559, denying that he was a 
Zwinglian. Duke John Frederick then had an opinion 
drawn up by two of his theologians, Stoessel and Moerlin, 
just as Melancthon had drawn his up. He sent it to 
Frederick, for which Frederick thanked him December 1 1, 
1559- 

And yet this was not all that came out of Melanc- 

*Benningen, the high-Lutheran judge in Frederick's court, 
wrote, November 5, 1559, to Strasburg, saying of it: "It was 
the work of the devil." Struve, the historian, says Frederick 
became Reformed at this time; but he is mistaken. 

10 



146 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



thon's Opinion. Frederick, while accepting it, yet went 
to work to seek light for himself. There came to him 
a great season of searching and proving by prayer and 
the study of God's Word. Though he calls himself only 
a "poor plain layman," yet he said, "that he hoped by 
the aid of the Holy Spirit, that "if he would diligently 
pray, God would reveal the truth to him as well as to 
the most learned doctor or theologians." He spent whole 
days and half the night over his Bible and theological 
works and in prayer. He was so assiduous in this that 
the marshal of his court declared that he robbed him- 
self of sleep, health and the pleasures of life in order 
to find out the truth. It is to this period that there 
belongs a pearl of our Reformed religious literature, a 
prayer by him, based on the Lord's Prayer, a "Prince's 
Lord's Prayer," a beautiful summary of petitions. This 
prayer is based on the motto of Frederick, "Lord, ac- 
cording to Thy will." 

And here we must pause in the history to note an 
important fact. Frederick, in all this study of the Bible 
and prayer, took his first step toward becoming Re- 
formed. He became not yet a conscious, but rather an 
unconscious Reformed. He was still a Lutheran and 
not conscious that he was becoming Reformed. But 
when he went to the Bible for his rule, he adopted the 
Reformed principle, "The Bible, the whole Bible, and 
nothing but the Bible." For, while the Lutherans and 
the Reformed both accept the Bible, yet the Lutherans, 
as compared with the Reformed, do so, negatively, the 
Reformed, positively. The Lutherans take what is not 
forbidden by the Bible, the Reformed only what is author- 
ized by the Bible. And Frederick adopted this Re- 
formed principle here. This distinction was the more 
noticeable, for neither of the Augsburg Confessions, 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 147 



either of 1530 or 1540, clearly make the Bible the rule 
of faith. The Lutherans here defended this lack of 
reference to the Bible by saying that Melancthon, in pre- 
senting that Confession to the Catholic emperor, was too 
politic to inject the Bible as over against the Church. 
But Zwingli's Confession, sent to the same diet, did so. 
The Reformed creeds always speak out on the Bible as 
the rule of faith. Now, Frederick, in seeking light from 
the Bible above any confessions, and even above the 
Augsburg Confession, passed over unconsciously to the 
Reformed position. And his later acts are but the logical 
fulfilment of this great principle, that he laid hold of 
here, in the midst of great sighing and tears, like his 
Master in the Garden. 

Another important event at the close of 1559 needs 
to be noted here. Hardly had Melancthon's Opinion been 
given, than Frederick appointed a new church court, a 
consistory to rule his church. It was composed of six 
members and made up from the court, the church and 
the university. Frederick had had enough of one-man 
rule in his church under Hesshuss, he now placed it in the 
care of six. But what was most remarkable was, that 
he put a strong Reformed at its head in Zuleger. 

B. THE YEAR I560 

The opening of this year revealed the continuance 
of the bitter controversies, in spite of the fact that the 
leaders in it had been dismissed, and that Melancthon 
had given his Opinion, which, it was expected, would 
harmonize all difficulties. The quarrels now broke out 
in the court. There Chancellor Minkwitz, who was a 
high-Lutheran, was attacked by Probus, who was Re- 
formed. Probus was a political rival of Minkwitz, who 



148 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



had, under Otto Henry, displaced him as chancellor. He 
charged Minkwitz with making Luther an idol and also 
with saying that the Elector was a Calvinist. For this, 
Minkwitz replied by calling him a liar. The Elector 
tried to temper their anger against each other, but they 
remained sworn foes. 

Hesshuss also published his work on "the Presence 
of Christ in the Lord's Supper." Its preface was dated 
October 20, 1559, when he was still smarting under his 
dismissal from Heidelberg. In it he defends the high- 
Lutheran view of the presence of Christ's body in the 
Lord's Supper, and adds an appendix on some errors of 
Calvin. The circulation of the book was forbidden at 
Heidelberg. It had its effect in strengthening the high- 
Lutherans. Olevianus now begins to appear, having 
been appointed professor of theology in the university at 
the beginning of this year. According to the status of 
the university, he must have taken oath on the Augsburg 
Confession. But, although he was a Calvinist, this gave 
him little trouble, as it was the Altered Augsburg. Evi- 
dently his ability at Treves had given him a reputation. 
SudhofT suggests that Olevianus, in teaching, used Calvin's 
"Institutes," which found so much popularity, especially 
from Farel, that it was published, and with it he tried to 
indoctrinate his pupils. But he is probably in error here. 
This publication by Olevianus of the "Institutes" of Cal- 
vin did not take place till after he had been using them, 
not at Heidelberg, but twenty years later, at Herborn, 
where he became professor at the end of his life. Cal- 
vin's "Institutes," published by Olevianus, was not pub- 
lished till 1586. Boquin, early in this year, had a call to 
the French Reformed Church at Strasburg. And it is here 
that Olevianus first appears on the scene by writing a 
letter (April 12) to Calvin. For he was greatly alarmed 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 149 



at the possible loss of Boquin, who had been the main 
instrument in the introduction of the Reformed faith into 
Heidelberg. He asks in this letter that Calvin would 
use his influence on Boquin not to accept the call to 
Strasburg. He also asks (and this is somewhat signifi- 
cant so early), that Calvin would send him the Church 
government of the Reformed Church at Geneva, so that 
he might show it to the consistory of the Palatinate. 
Already it seems this zealous young man had a vision of 
that land becoming Reformed. 

All these events seem to have roused the fear of the 
high-Lutherans that the Palatinate was more and more 
drifting over to the Reformed. We have already seen 
how Duke John Frederick of Saxony, Frederick's son-in- 
law, and Frederick's wife had been alarmed. So great 
was their anxiety, that on March 15, 1560, Frederick's 
wife, in a letter to John Frederick, asks him to have 
public prayers offered in his churches, that her husband 
may be kept in the Lutheran faith. She was intensely 
Lutheran and continued so for some time, so that later 
there was even a slight danger of an open breach be- 
tween her husband and herself. But later she did what 
a true wife should do and obeyed her husband, and ac- 
cepted his faith, though she did it of her own free will 
and she afterwards became a zealous Reformed. 

In view of these facts and especially that the con- 
sistory or head of the Palatinate Church was controlled 
by the Reformed, and that Frederick was more and more 
surrounded by the Reformed in court and university, 
it was high time that a special effort should be made 
to steady Frederick in his adherence to the Lutheran 
faith. 

An incident offered the opportunity to Duke John 
Frederick of Saxony to do so. Frederick seems to have 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



had so many excellent daughters, that not only had 
Duke John Frederick married one, but his brother, John 
William, also had arranged to marry another. Duke 
John Frederick saw in this wedding an opportunity to 
use his influence on Frederick. He therefore brought 
along to Heidelberg two of his theologians, Stoessel and 
Moerlin. These two Dukes remained in and around 
Heidelberg for six weeks and John Frederick took fre- 
quent opportunity to warn Frederick and his court 
against the evils of Zwinglianism. His court preacher, 
Stoessel, was permitted by Frederick to preach. And he 
abused this privilege by publicly denouncing Frederick 
and his council as Zwinglians, because he said they did 
not believe that the body and blood of Christ were dis- 
tributed at the Lord's Supper. And he would have had 
the audacity to get this sermon printed, and thus exert 
a high-Lutheran influence in wider circles if the Elector 
had not forbidden it. 

Frederick evidently was now in a very uncomfortable 
position. His high-Lutheran visitors were heating up 
his own people against him. His wife, in the court, was 
heating up the ladies against him. He complains in his 
letters that he had more trouble than he could well bear, 
and could not have borne it if the Lord had not helped 
him. 

So it was finally arranged that there should be a 
public disputation on June 3, in the auditorium of the uni- 
versity. This took place in the presence of the court and 
the university, and lasted five days. On the one side 
were Stoessel and Moerlin, who defended high-Luther- 
anism. Hesshuss had, some time before, sent Klebitz' 
theses to them and they were therefore prepared to attack 
the Reformed. On the other side was Boquin, as head of 
the theological faculty. Olevianus, though professor of 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 151 



theology, did not take part, which is a wonder, consider- 
ing his aggressive dispostion. Boquin proposed seven 
theses, on which the debate took place on the first two 
days. They were Reformed in doctrine and almost the 
same that Klebitz had proposed for his degree, and 
against which Hesshuss had so protested. In them, Bo- 
quin defended the view that bread and wine were sym- 
bols, but not only symbols, for Christ was present spirit- 
ually in the Lord's Supper to believers. He was so care- 
ful to guard himself against the idea that the bread 
and wine were only symbols (which was the great 
charge of the Lutherans against the Reformed), that 
Stoessel in the progress of the discussion had to grant 
that the meaning of his opponent was, that Christ's body 
was truly given at the Lord's Supper, together with the 
bread, but to believers. 

On the other side, the high-Lutheran theologians pro- 
posed twenty-four theses, which stated the high-Lutheran 
doctrine, in all its sharpness, over against the Reformed 
on three points : 

First. Christ's body was really and essentially pres- 
ent in the Lord's Supper. This was over against the 
Zwinglians, who held the elements were mere signs, and 
also over against the Calvinists, who held that the power 
and activity of Christ's body were in the Lord's Supper, 
yet denied that its substance was really there. 

Second. The body and blood of Christ were re- 
ceived through the mouth. 

Third. They were received by unbelievers and hypo- 
crites. 

These were debated during the last three days of the 
conference. 

During the discussion, there was an interesting by- 
play. Erastus, who was rector of the university, and 



152 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



who (as we have already seen), was a theologian as 
well as a physician, attempted to take part in the discus- 
sion. It seems that he sat at the table with Boquin, and 
at times would give him important points against his 
opponents. His keen remarks were not to Stoessel's 
taste. When, on one occasion, Erastus attempted to 
take part in the debate, Stoessel perpetrated a joke at 
his expense, namely, that the affairs of the Reformed 
must be in a pretty bad way when they needed to call in 
a doctor. An attempt was then made to get Stoessel 
into a debate with Erastus one afternoon, and it had 
gone so far as to have the approval of the Elector and 
the Dukes of Saxony. But Stoessel declined on the plea 
that Erastus was not a theologian, but a physician. Stoes- 
sel said to him, "You are a doctor and have no call to 
mix in these things." At which, Erastus replied, "But 
I am also a Christian and want to confess my faith before 
everyone." In saying this, Erastus was revealing the 
true Reformed temperament, — that each Christian, 
though a layman, ought to be ready to confess his faith. 
Had the debate come off between Erastus and Stoessel, 
Erastus would have been a sharp polemist, if we may 
judge from his book published later. 

The conference instead of producing union, only re- 
vealed the difference between the two parties. The 
theses of both sides were published. The two Dukes 
had the proceedings published at Erfurt, with a sharp 
censure of Boquin added. Boquin published his theses 
with a brief explanation of their meaning (Calvin, says 
Seisen, was not satisfied with the outcome of this con- 
ference). Later, in 1566, after this controversy was 
over, Boquin again published these theses, prefacing 
them with Brenz' statements about the Lord's Supper, 
as published in his commentary on the Gospel of John, 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 153 



published in 1528. Brenz in that early day virtually took 
the Reformed position. 

The influence of this disputation, it is important to 
notice. In the case of Stoessel, it was the beginning of 
his ultimate separation from the high-Lutherans, and 
his acceptance of the Melancthonian views, for which he 
died in prison. 

But most important is it to notice the influence of this 
disputation on the Elector Frederick. And just here is 
where the greatest confusion appears between the dif- 
ferent historians. Alting, Seisen, Remling, Sudhofjf and 
Seisen say that this conference made Frederick Re- 
formed. Seisen says, that "as Luther's disputation in 
1 5 18 in the Augustinian cloister at Heidelberg led to the 
origin of the reformation in the Palatinate, so this dis- 
putation led to the origin of the Reformed Church there." 
But in this we cannot agree with them. Kluckhohn, who 
is the biographer of Frederick, and who also published his 
Letters, proves that at this time Frederick did not recog- 
nize the untenableness of Melancthon's views.* 

Probably the influence on Frederick is best stated 
by Alting, who says, "that the Saxon theologians seemed 
to excel in boldness and fluency of speech, but Fred- 
erick's theologians in intelligence and thorough defense 
of the simple truth." In other words, while the Saxon 
Lutherans had the more eloquence, the Reformed had 
more arguments. The influence on Frederick seems to 
have been, that it revealed to him more than ever that 
the high-Lutherans were weak in argument and also that 
the Reformed had a strong case. Frederick was not 
as fully satisfied with the arguments of the Lutherans, 
as of his own theologians, as for instance, the remark of 
Boquin which seemed to the Elector of the greatest 

* See Kluckhohn's "Life of Frederick," page 73. 



154 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 

significance, that "one could hold to the true presence 
of Christ in the Lord's Supper without declaring that 
the body was in, with and under the bread, or holding to 
oral manducation. When Boquin asked of what use was 
the oral manducation, he received only the answer, "so 
that the veracity of Christ might not be made less. This 
was like Luther at Marburg, who, when he was silenced 
by Zwingli's argument, could only point to the words: 
"This is My body," which he had already written on the 
table before him. 

But Frederick remained, as before, a Lutheran, or 
perhaps it is better stated, an irenic Lutheran, for peace 
and unity were as yet his great ideals. And it was his 
steadfast adherence to them that soon produced startling 
results. For it seems that the disputation had poured 
oil on the fire by greatly encouraging the high-Lutherans 
in the Palatinate. And this was serious, for most of 
the pastors of Heidelberg were high-Lutheran. Fred- 
erick had a conference with Cuneus, pastor of St. Peter's 
Church, who was one of them and also of the consistory, 
together with Neser, Greiner and Conrad, but without 
result. They still kept up their polemics. 

Finally Frederick seems to have become tired of the 
strife and he dismissed those who kept up these polemics. 
On August 12, he took matters in his hand and ordered 
that all the ministers who would not keep silence about 
polemics should be dismissed. As a result, the four 
ministers of Heidelberg, whom we have mentioned, were 
dismissed, also two at Oppenheim, one at Alzei and a 
superintendent at Kaiserlautern. He did not send them 
away because they were high-Lutherans,* but because 

* The historians seem to differ as to the cause. Some say he 
required them to subscribe to the Frankford Recess, others to 
the Opinion of Melancthon. We here follow Kluckhohn. 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 155 



they would not stop their polemics. It seems that the 
great body of the preachers, especially in the country 
districts of the Palatinate, were low-Lutheran or irenic, 
and therefore were not dismissed. Frederick also dis- 
missed Stab, his wife's court-preacher, because it was 
found that among the satirical poems published at that 
time by the high-Lutherans, he had written one published 
by his son, which said that Frederick was led around 
by the nose by Count George of Erbach. 

As a result of this order of Frederick against the 
ministers, his chancellor, Minkwitz, and Judge von Ben- 
ningen, the two high-Lutheran representatives in his 
court, at beginning of next year resigned. This dismis- 
sal and resignation of these high-Lutherans ultimately 
proved a good thing for the introduction of the Re- 
formed faith later, for it removed its greatest oppo- 
nents. So that when the Reformed religion was later 
introduced, it was done with very little difficulty, for its 
greatest opponents were gone. Frederick in all this was 
only pursuing his main idea of peace and unity in the 
Church, which was dearer to him than any of the parties 
in it. 

In September, Boquin published Melancthon's Opinion 
°f 1559, as if to show that all was done according to 
Melancthon's ideas. 

c. THE year 1561 

The year 1561 was the year of the greatest impor- 
tance, for it was the year when Elector Frederick III 
became Reformed. And yet even this statement must be 
taken with some qualification as we shall see. The main 
cause of it was the conference of the German princes at 
Naumberg, in January of that year. But even before 



156 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



that, several events are significant. The year opened in- 
auspiciously for the high Lutherans. Not merely did 
Minkwitz and Benningen resign, but the only remaining 
Lutheran professor of theology at the university Einhorn, 
who was a high-Lutheran, was dismissed and Tremellius 
a converted Jew and Reformed, was called in his place. 
Thus the whole faculty was now Reformed, Boquin, 
Olevianus and Tremellius. At the beginning of 1561, 
Boquin published two important works. One was a 
"Reply to Hesshuss' Presence of the Christ in the Lord's 
Supper." It was a large book, in Latin, of 250 pages. 
Count George of Erbach, at the end of the previous year, 
opposed the Elector's giving his permission for its publi- 
cation, lest it would only lead to the continuation of the 
polemics. But it was published, nevertheless, at Basle. 
Hesshuss replied to it the next year in a volume "Verae et 
sanae Confessiones," that answered the different Reformed 
reformers, Calvin, Beza, Boquin and Klebitz. Klebitz, 
after his departure from Heidelberg, published in this 
year at Freiburg, a book entitled, "The Victory of the 
Truth and the Ruin of the Saxon Papacy." He replied 
in scathing words to Hesshuss' attempts to be a Lutheran 
pope, and his efforts to introduce Saxon high-Lutheranism 
into the Palatinate. Hesshuss, in his reply, does not 
mention his name, but calls him "Kleinwitzius" or "Little- 
wit," as if to say that he was of little consequence in the 
intellectual world. Still another significant book seems 
to have appeared, if we may believe the high-Lutherans; 
Boquin, at the beginning of this year, published Calvin's 
catechism, translated into the Greek language. 

The Conference at Naumberg met January 20, 1561. 
It was another attempt to unite the German Protestant 
princes against the Catholics, who had become united at 
the Council of Trent. This was a difficult task, for the 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 157 



Lutherans were divided into two parties. The high- 
Lutherans controlled Thuringia, ducal Saxony, Mecklen- 
berg and Pomerania, and Duke John Frederick of Sax- 
ony, was their leader. But the majority of princes, as 
Electoral Saxony, Hesse, Wurtemberg, Zweibriicken and 
the Palatinate were Melancthonian. How to heal this 
breach was the great problem. Into the minute details 
of the Naumburg Conference we have not time to enter. 
An attempt was made at this conference, because almost 
all the princes, who had signed the Augsburg Confession 
in 1530, had died, to have it signed over again by the 
princes then living. But when at this conference they 
tried to find a copy of the original Augsburg Confession 
of 1530, as presented by Melancthon to the German 
Emperor, no copy of it could be found. (Rev. Prof. 
James W. Richard, D.D., one of the best historians of 
the Lutheran Church in this country, in his "Confes- 
sional History of the Lutheran Church," says there is 
no such thing as an Unaltered Augsburg Confession in 
existence, as the original had been lost. He shows that 
there were a great many editions, and that Melancthon 
made a great many changes in them, so that even the 
old view of most church historians that there were two 
main editions, namely, of 1530 and of 1540, does not 
hold.) A later edition of 1530 was found; but it was 
found that it acknowledged transubstantiation in the 
Lord's Supper. This discovery, as we shall see, pro- 
duced a profound impression on Frederick. In a later 
edition, of 1531, this objectionable statement had been 
removed. So the Protestant princes agreed to sign this 
edition of 153 1. But Frederick stood out for the Altered 
edition of 1540, because it had been in common use for 
so long a time. Finally a compromise was reached, and 
the princes, even Frederick, signed the edition of 1531. 



158 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



But in the preface that they placed before it, there was 
this statement, that "we will not suffer ourselves to be 
deflected from the Confession as explained and again 
delivered in 1540." So their act was not intended to 
weaken the subscription to the 1540 edition, because it 
had become so widely used. And so Frederick could 
still hold to the Altered Augsburg. The formula at 
Naumburg accentuated the real presence of Christ in the 
Supper, but said nothing about oral manducation or the 
reception of Christ's body by unbelievers, and in this 
was unsatisfactory to the high-Lutherans. The truth 
was, that this pact was a compromise, in which neither 
seemed to gain the victory. But such compromises give 
dangerous opportunities for future conflicts and that is 
what happened. The Melancthonians seemed to have 
gained the victory at Naumburg, as they had done before 
at Frankford, in 1558. But no, they did not. For 
Duke John Frederick of Saxony was not satisfied. He 
had wanted inserted in the formula a clause denouncing 
the sects, referring of course, to the Zwinglians and Re- 
formed. As that was not done, he created a sensation 
by suddenly leaving the conference at Naumburg as his 
protest against its action. And strange to say, although 
almost alone at Naumburg (Mecklenburg was the only 
duchy that supported him), yet his views ultimately 
gained the victory. For the Lutheran princes, who had 
been Melancthonian, one by one went over to his side, 
until Elector Frederick was largely left alone in his ad- 
herence to low-Lutheranism and the Altered Augsburg 
Confession. That was the reason why Elector Frederick 
ultimately went over to the Reformed. He was forced 
to go, by being forced out by them. But all this did not 
as yet appear. 

However, this Naumberg conference left a perma- 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 159 



nent result on Frederick. It revealed to him that the 
early Lutheran faith was, as he styled it, "popish" on 
the Lord's Supper. This shook the authority of Luther 
over him. He still respected him as a great man, but 
he could no longer look up to him as infallible. And 
what is even more significant, this discovery about the 
first edition of the Augsburg Confession also shook the 
absolute authority of Melancthon over him. If the au- 
thor of the Augsburg Confession erred in its first 
edition, why not in later editions. Before this, Fred- 
erick had unhesitatingly accepted the Melancthonian 
or low-Lutheran doctrines. Now, however, doubts 
were raised in his mind that perhaps they might 
not be altogether true. It was a terrible awakening 
for Frederick. But it only drove him more and more 
to his Bible. The more he studied the Bible, the more 
he felt that Luther could, and did err. It seemed to him 
that Luther, even after he became a reformer, was still 
held by some Catholic ideas, and he came to the con- 
clusion that stiff Lutheranism still had some Catholicism 
sticking in it. But though he broke away from Luther, 
it did not lead him nearer Calvin, for he says at the Augs- 
burg Diet (1566), that he had read neither Calvin's or 
Zwingli's works (and this in spite of the fact that Calvin 
had once dedicated to him his Commentary on Jeremiah. 
He could not, however, say as much about Bullinger, 
whom he seemed to have called to his help by that time). 

Frederick in thus turning to the Bible and making it 
the infallible rule, was only carrying out his unconscious 
tendency toward the Reformed. We have seen how, in 
1559, he became unconsciously Reformed; now, in 1561, 
he became consciously Reformed. But still he is not 
openly Reformed. For in those days it often happened 
that men became Protestant long before they made a 



l6o THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



public profession of it, and so it was that Frederick be- 
came Reformed. He became consciously Reformed be- 
fore he became openly Reformed. It was at this time, 
says Kluckhohn, his biographer and best historian, that 
Frederick became Reformed. He took his first step 
toward a profession of the Reformed faith. And yet, 
while he became consciously Reformed, we have to ex- 
plain certain of his statements that occurred later, where 
he declared his continued adherence to the Altered Augs- 
burg Confession. One of these is a Hessian document, 
another, that we found last summer (1913), was against 
an attack of the Catholics (1565), in which he declares 
his continued adherence to the Augsburg Confession. 
And this fact appears, especially in his defense at the diet 
of Augsburg, in 1566, where he states his continued ad- 
herence to that creed. How can we harmonize all this 
with the statement that he became Reformed in 1561, and 
later published the Heidelberg catechism in 1563. Is 
Frederick guilty of inconsistency, pretending to be 
Lutheran, when he was Reformed. Was he guilty of 
hypocrisy, when, after becoming Reformed, he claimed 
the protection of the Augsburg Confession so as to hold 
his place as a prince. We do not believe it. He was too 
pious a man for that. All his dealings show him to be a 
man of honor and fair dealing. There are only two 
ways (as it appears to us), in which this matter can 
be reconciled. 

First. Frederick believed that the Altered Augsburg 
Confession was broad enough to cover him as Reformed 
and so he claimed its protection. 

Second. Frederick gradually became Reformed. 
First, he became unconsciously Reformed in 1559. Now 
he becomes consciously Reformed in 1561. Later, in 
1562, as we shall see, he became openly Reformed. But 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 161 



he did not officially become Reformed until after the 
German Diet of 1566 had led to the granting of permission 
for the use of the Heidelberg catechism. 

We believe both are true, and that all the while he 
sincerely held to the Altered Augsburg Confession. But 
it may be remarked, that while that Confession was con- 
sidered Lutheran then, there is hardly a single Lutheran 
Church to-day that holds to it, as they hold to the Un- 
altered Augsburg. We have dwelt on this subject, for 
it is a difficult one and one that has perplexed us many 
years. Frederick now made the Bible his rule of faith, 
but still adhering to the Altered Augsburg Confession as 
the best summary of its truth. One thing, however, 
was very evident, he had broken entirely with the high- 
Lutherans. On March 10, 1561, after his son-in-law 
had sent him a copy of one of Luther's works, published 
in 1544, in the hope of influencing him against the Zwing- 
lians, Frederick replied that he found nothing useful in 
it, only denunciations of the Reformed, and that was 
not right. 

And, while thus openly breaking with the high-Lu- 
therans, Frederick now introduced more of the Reformed 
customs. It was at this time, says Kluckhohn (and not 
a year before, as other historians put it), that Frederick 
began extensive changes in the cultus of the Church. 
For he found that the people, though Protestant, did 
not cease to venerate the wafer as being the body of 
Christ and even worshipped it as God, and when not 
permitted to eat it, demand the mere sight of it. He 
also found that a number of ministers encouraged such 
false views, some even declaring that they had the real 
body of Christ in their hand and reached it out to the 
people at the communion. Frederick had, by this time, 
become thoroughly Zwinglian in his utter abhorrence 

11 



1 62 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



of such things. So he began great changes in the 
churches. The statue of Count Philip, Otto Henry's 
brother, in the Church of the Holy Ghost, at Heidelberg, 
he caused to be covered with a black cloth. The pictures 
on the walls of the churches he caused to be white- 
washed over. He closed up the organs, and it was not 
until a century had passed, 1655, tnat tne organ was 
again used in Heidelberg. Latin singing was set aside 
for the singing of Luther's psalms and other hymns. 
Fonts were cast out, for as he wrote (1564) to the Duke 
of Gotha, none of the apostles were baptized in stone 
coffins like them. He had the altars cast out of the 
churches and a table placed instead of the altar. In- 
stead of the gold chalice used for the wine at the Lord's 
Supper, a pewter or wooden cup was used. And in- 
stead of wafers, the breaking of bread was introduced. 
It is probable, says Kluckhohn, that his order about the 
breaking of bread was given without the consent of the 
council. But that would have mattered little, for the 
Reformed had gotten control of his affairs, both in court, 
consistory and university. And it is not to be expected 
that they would not utilize every opportunity for their 
benefit. Lay baptism was set aside. The communion 
of the sick was lessened, so that it might not be con- 
sidered an opus operatum. 

For many of these reforms he could quote his pre- 
decessor, Otto Henry, as his example ; for he, as we saw, 
puts the pictures out of the churches and also altars, 
except one in each church. But Frederick went far be- 
yond Otto Henry and in the direction of the Reformed. 
And yet he did not do this because he was Reformed, 
but because they were unbiblical, for now he was above 
all things else following the Bible. Several events 
occurred in 1561 to show the growing tendency at Heidel- 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 163 



berg toward the Reformed. One was the call that Fred- 
erick gave to Peter Martyr, the great Reformed theo- 
logian of the early reformation next to Calvin. As he 
would not come, Ursinus came at his recommendation. 
He arrived at Heidelberg September 9 of this year. 
And Ursinus was thoroughly Reformed when he came. 
He displaced Olevianus as head of the preparatory theo- 
logical seminary, at Heidelberg, called the "College of 
Wisdom," and later as professor in the university. Ole- 
vianus then became the head of the Palatinate church. 
Boquin also, in August, 1561, published an important 
work : an "Exegesis of the word 'koinoonia' or Commun- 
ion," his second for that year. It was an explanation of 
the divine and human communion at the Lord's Supper. 
It is, in reality, a brief dogmatics, of about 200 pages, 
taking up the various doctrines in their order. With 
the idea of communion, he takes up God, Christ, the 
Holy Spirit, the ministry, the sacraments, man, the soul, 
faith, etc., all as different parts of the communion. 

Ursinus, on August 15, 1561, received the doctor's 
degree, for the statutes of the university required it of 
every professor of theology. As professor, he would 
have to take oath on the Augsburg Confession, but on 
the Altered Augsburg. Late in 1561, Ursinus published 
a reply to Hesshuss, his maiden effort, and the beginning 
of his masterpieces on the defense of the Reformed 
doctrine. Frederick also showed his growing friendship 
for the Reformed of France in appointing delegates to 
the great conference of Poissy, in September, 1561, where 
Beza so eloquently defended the Reformed before the 
court. He appointed Boquin and Diller, but they returned 
before they got to Poissy. 

The changed condition of everything at Heidelberg 
is shown, in August 25, of that year, by the judgment 



164 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



that the Heidelburg university gave in regard to the 
case of Zanchius, at Strasburg, Zanchius was Reformed, 
and was being forced out of Strasburg by the high- 
Lutherans, and he appealed to Heidelberg. This uni- 
versity pronounced in favor of his doctrine of perse- 
verance of the saints, which is a distinctly Reformed doc- 
trine. (Zanchius later became professor of Reformed 
theology at Heidelberg.) That a Lutheran university 
like Heidelberg should thus publicly give a deliverance 
in favor of the Reformed was an unheard of thing in 
those days. It caused great anxiety among the high- 
Lutherans about Heidelberg, and was the signal that the 
Palatinate was becoming Reformed. 

D. THE YEAR I562 

If 1 561 was the year of preparation for the transition 
to the Reformed, the next year marked that transition. 
Two events occurred in that year of special significance. 
One was the publication of a booklet, which Ebrard says 
was the signal that Frederick became Reformed, or he 
would not have allowed it to be published ; indeed, it was 
published at the order of the Elector. It was a book 
by Erastus, who hitherto had not published anything 
for the Reformed.* Boquin had been their literary cham- 
pion, but now Erastus enters the field. His book was en- 
titled "Fundamental Account as to the Way in which the 
Words of Christ, 'This is my Body/ are to be under- 
stood." It is a bright, clear book and pronounced on the 
Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper. He calls the 
sacraments signs and seals. Avoiding the somewhat de- 

*What the Elector had refused to do for Boquin's Reply- 
to Hesshuss a year before, and so it was published elsewhere, he 
now did for this book of Erastus. He ordered its publication. 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 165 



vious windings by which theologians sometimes entered 
into their subjects, he went straight to the point and pro- 
duced a book of remarkable keenness, and one very hard 
for the Lutherans to answer. It is also quite thorough 
for a layman. He first takes up the meaning of the 
words "This is my body," first as given by Paul, then 
secondly by Christ, and third and lastly by the early 
Church Fathers, quoting from Chrysostom, Augustine 
and Cyprian. His illustrations of the Lord's Supper, as 
a sign and seal, are clear and cogent. He is severe on 
the high-Lutherans as strife-makers, and denounces their 
idea that the unworthy receive Christ's body at the Lord's 
Supper. What is especially noticeable is the cocksure 
way he has of stating his affirmations, repeatedly refer- 
ring to them as unanswerable. But this very element 
makes the book the more interesting reading. This 
seems to have been the Reformed certainty of faith, 
which was a product of their doctrine of assurance. 
Such a cogent defense of Reformed doctrine the Luth- 
erans could not afford to let go unanswered, and Mar- 
bach, the prominent Lutheran of Strasburg, replied to 
it. Erastus then published (1565) a Reply to Marbach's 
attack. In it he takes up Marbach's book, section by sec- 
tion, and answers it in detail. The preface reveals Eras- 
tus as a foeman of Marbach steel, even though he was 
only a layman and a doctor. He is exceedingly sharp 
and keen. For at the close of the preface he pokes fun 
at Marbach, when, after speaking of the poorness of the 
arguments given by a man of such fame and ability as 
Marbach, he Erastus (a doctor) will now use his skill and 
give Dr. Marbach a purge, that is, provided he can find 
enough hellebore to do so. And he proceeds to do it in 
his Reply. We have dwelt on this book of Erastus in 
1562 because it was an epoch-making book. 



l66 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



The other event is that Frederick appointed a commis- 
sion to prepare what was later published as the Heidel- 
berg catechism.* We have seen how he first had tried to 
bring about peace in his country in 1559 by the publi- 
cation of a formula of the Lord's Supper, then later 
in 1560 by a conference and by the dismissal of polemists. 
Now he tried a fourth method, the publication of a cate- 
chism. One reason why he chose this last method was 
because of the rivalry in the Palatinate between Brenz' 
catechism, which had formerly been used, and Luther's 
catechism. To avoid trouble about this he decided to use 
neither, and he got out the Heidelberg catechism. His 
publication of a new catechism was not a thing unusual 
in those days. Cohrs and Reu, in their republications of 
the catechisms of Germany in the sixteenth century, give 
thousand of pages of catechisms. It was a catechism- 
producing age. And Frederick, doubtless, did not, there- 
fore, expect to raise the hostility that afterwards ap- 
peared against his catechism, for he was only adding 
another to the many published before. But he was most 
of all anxious that this new catechism should be 
Biblical, for he was now, above all things, a student of 
the Bible. It was on the Bible that it was to be based, 
as he himself declares in his defense of it at the German 
diet of Augsburg, 1566. An interesting fact is given by 
Remling that it was at the suggestion of Olevianus that 
he ordered this catechism to be prepared. Wundt says 
that Olevianus suggested the idea of a catechism and 
Ursinus worked it out. So the Elector appointed a com- 
mission made up of representatives of the court, the uni- 

*Alting says that over against the variety of catechisms 
in the Palatinate the Elector wanted to introduce into all 
the Churches one consistent form of doctrine, which should more 
clearly set forth beside other doctrines, especially the person of 
Christ and the sacraments. 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 167 

versity and the Church. These seem to have given its 
composition to Ursinus and Olevianus as the main 
authors. By comparing it with Ursinus' two previous 
catechisms, the larger and shorter, it is very evident that 
Ursinus is the main author. Frederick himself declares 
that what was placed there was done so after consulta- 
tion with him. The only place he corrected it was in 
answer 78. He left a memorial written in his own hand, 
in which he expresses approbation of the 78th answer, 
which was a quotation from the Church Father, Theo- 
doret, and was placed in the catechism so as to show that 
the sacrament was not merely an allegory or pretense, 
but that there was a real presence, which, though not a 
bodily one, was a spiritual one through the Holy Spirit. 
Probably what Frederick was careful about was that it 
should be in harmony with the Altered Augsburg Con- 
fession, and not contain anything that was against it. So 
our catechism attacks the peculiar doctrines of the high- 
Lutherans as ubiquity, oral manducation and the eating 
of Christ's body by the unworthy, but it is careful not 
to say a word against the Augsburg Confession, although 
it is evidently out of harmony with the Unaltered Augs- 
burg on the Lutheran cultus.* 

E — the; year 1563 

The draft of the catechism was finished by the end 
of 1562, so that in January of the next year a synod of 
the Palatinate was held to adopt it. Two accounts of 
this synod have recently turned up, one at Weimar, the 
other at Bremen. But they are really the same account, 

* During this yea^*, Boquin published another work, a "De- 
fense of Melancthon," against Hesshuss and Villegagnon. It 
was published at Geneva. 



1 68 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



and they are by a high-Lutheran. The synod met for 
eight days (January 11-17), at Heidelberg, and the cate- 
chism was adopted and subscribed to. At this synod 
answer 78, of our catechism, was placed in it instead of 
answer 68, of Ursinus' Shorter catechism. We gave the 
latter so a comparison can be made. 

But do the bread and wine become the real body and 
blood of Christ? 

No, for Christ has only one real body, which was born 
of the Virgin Mary, crucified for us, dead, buried, risen 
again, ascended to heaven, and is now there at the right 
hand of God, but not upon earth until he comes again to 
judge the quick and the dead.* 

Then, on Sunday, January 17, the synod united to- 
gether in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. On the 
18th the Elector called the synod before him and he ad- 
dressed them as follows: "We have been informed that 
you have given the catechism your unanimous approval. 
This pleases me very much. It is our wish that you will 
faithfully adhere to it." On January 19 he wrote his 
preface, published in the catechism. 

About the same time that the catechism appeared a 
little brooklet also appeared, which was sometimes pub- 
lished with it, and whose publication is very significant. 
It was entitled "Bread-breaking." Who the author was 
is unknown, but its outline follows the outline of Erastus 
in his book on the Lord's Supper. It was probably pub- 
lished, because of all the novelties that Frederick had in- 
troduced, none probably met with as much opposition as 
the putting away of the wafer at the Lord's Supper. So 
to aid the introduction of bread-breaking, this booklet 
was published. For the Reformed not merely used bread 

* During this synod a booklet of Bullinger's was scattered 
around. 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 169 



instead of wafers, but also claimed that the bread must 
also be broken in order to fully obey Christ's command. 

The influence in favor of bread-breaking must have 
come from the Churches that already used it. It is sig- 
nificant that none of them were Lutheran, for the Luth- 
erans still clung to the wafer. The Churches that used 
bread were the French Reformed Churches and the 
Church of Zurich. So Frederick left the company of the 
Lutherans entirely when he introduced bread-breaking, 
and went over to the Reformed. This is all the more re- 
markable, for bread-breaking was as yet not by any 
means universally introduced among the Reformed. Bern 
and Basle had not yet introduced it. So this was the 
most prominent sign that the Palatinate Church had gone 
over to the Reformed. The publication of a new cate- 
chism could have been easily explained away and so could 
many of the other changes in cultus. But this could not, 
for it was only and thoroughly Reformed. For the Re- 
formed were peculiar in holding that, while our Lord left 
many things open, as how the Lord's Supper should be 
observed, whether sitting or standing, or when, in the 
morning or evening, yet he had specifically commanded 
the breaking of bread. This led in the reformation to a 
long controversy with the Lutherans about bread-break- 
ing. The proofs given in the booklet are that Christ's 
disciples broke the bread, as also did Paul, and that it 
was the custom of the early Church up to the time of 
the introduction of the mass. The breaking of the bread 
is the special reminder of how Christ's body was broken 
for us. But there was still another reason back of all 
this that Frederick seems to have had in mind. In his 
intense opposition to papist relics in the Protestant 
Church, especially artolotry or the worship of God in 
the wafer, this breaking of the bread broke up their 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



bread-god, and dispelled the magical idea connected with 
the Catholic rite. Hesshuss, in his "Warning against the 
Heidelberg catechism," attacks this booklet, as did 
Flacius, in his attack on the catechism. 

These two books, the Heidelberg catechism and the 
Breaking of Bread, completed the introduction of the Re- 
formed faith into the Palatinate, although another book, 
by Boquin, ought to be noted, — namely, "The Canons 
by which the Covenant in the Words. 'This is my body/ 
is defended." At its end is a part about the breaking of 
bread. 

But while Frederick was thus virtually Reformed, 
he was not yet officially so. He still claimed to be an ad- 
herent of the Altered Augsburg Confession. Whether, 
with his Reformed tendencies, he could claim the protec- 
tion of that symbol was now the problem in Germany. It 
was clear that Zwinglianism could not do so. But since 
Zwingli's time a new system of doctrine had come up, 
called Calvinism, which took a midway position on 
the Lord's Supper, between the Zwinglian and the 
Lutheran. Zwinglianism made the bread and wine only 
symbols, and the Lutheran made Christ's body and blood 
present in the elements of bread and wine. Calvin taught 
that the bread and wine were more than symbols, that, 
like the Lutheran, there was a presence of Christ in the 
elements ; but that it was a spiritual presence, not a bodily, 
as the Lutherans hold. Christ's body was in heaven, but 
the Holy Ghost mediated the influence of that body to 
the believer at the Supper. Now, the question was up, 
could this new doctrine be held in Germany under the 
Augsburg Confession? The Catholics and high-Luth- 
erans said no, even though the Altered Augsburg, by its 
revised verbiage, allowed room for it. The controversy 
finally went up as high as the German diet of 1566, where 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S CONVERSION 171 



Frederick made his famous defense, after which the 
Heidelberg catechism was permitted in Germany. It was 
simply tolerated, not legally adopted. The Reformed 
faith was not legally recognized in Germany until at the 
close of the Thirty Years' War. But after 1566, when, at 
the diet of Augsburg, the Reformed were given toleration, 
Frederick was free to declare himself Reformed, and he 
officially became Reformed. He never, as far as we 
know, set aside the Altered Augsburg. Indeed, after his 
death, when the "Harmony of the Reformed Creeds," in 
1588, was drawn up by the Reformed of Germany, the 
Augsburg was included in it. But as Ursinus intimates 
in one of his last lettters, it was gradually laid on the 
shelf for the better creed, the Heidelberg catechism. For 
the Heidelberg catechism is, in several points, superior 
to the Augsburg Confession. 

1. The Augsburg Confession consists of twenty-one 
articles or chapters on theology, and after that rejects 
in seven articles the abuses of the Catholic church. It 
was a theological treatise. The Heidelberg catechism 
was better adapted for practical use. 

2. The Heidelberg catechism contains some import- 
ant doctrines left out of the Augsburg, as for instance, 
the Bible as the rule of faith (answers 19 and 21). It 
also omits some papistical elements of the Augsburg, as 
confession and the calling of the Lord's Supper the mass. 

3. The Heidelberg catechism, in its emphasis on the 
atoning death of Christ, which is its centre, completes the 
Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith of the Augs- 
burg. Though justification by faith is considered the 
great peculiarity of Lutheranism, yet the Lutherans never 
completed that doctrine as Calvin did ethically and also 
doctrinally by the doctrines of election and perseverance of 
saints. The fact is the Reformed doctrine of justification 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



is nearer to the early Lutheran than the Lutheran, after 
they had gotten into the controversies. And nowhere is 
justification more fully and beautifully and completely 
given than in the Heidelburg, answer 60. The truth is 
the Heidelberg catechism has in it the flavor of the early 
Lutheranism, and that is what makes it live in the hearts 
of so many Germans. 



CHAPTER II 



IS THERE A MELANCTHONIAN-CALVINISTIC THEOLOGY 

The Opinion, given by Melancthon, in 1559, to Elec- 
tor Frederick III, suggests the question at the head of 
this chapter. The view that there was a Melancthonian- 
Calvinistic theology was prominent in our Church about 
fifty years ago, and was emphasized by Rev. Drs. Schaff, 
Nevin, and others. Dr. Schaff* speaks of the Heidelberg 
catechism as giving strong expression to the Calvinistic- 
Melancthonian theory of the spiritual real presence in 
the Lord's Supper. Rev. Prof. G. W. Richards, D.D., _ 
in his recent "Studies on the Heidelberg Catechism," fol- 
lows Dr. Schaff, and says that Melancthon came into 
substantial agreement with Calvin on the sacraments. 
Although he hedges somewhat as compared with Dr. 
Schaff, by saying that Melancthon was not prepared to 
profess himself a Calvinist. Rev. Dr. Harbaugh goes 
farther than either in his "Fathers of the Reformed 
Church," Vol. I, where he places Melancthon among the 
founders of the Reformed Church, a thing which the 
Germans have never granted. For the Reformed of 
Germany, in their series of the "Fathers and Founders 
of the Reformed Church," excluded Melancthon from 
the list, and the Lutherans also are careful to include 
him in their Lutheran series of volumes on the "Fathers 
of the Lutheran Church." But this view that Calvin and 
Melancthon met on the subject of the Lord's Supper 
was the view of the Mercersburg School of Theology, 

*The "Swiss Reformation" 1892, page 669. 

173 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



whose aim sometimes seems to have been to prove that 
our Church was a half Lutheran Church.* 

Some of the theologians of Germany were appealed 
to as favoring this view, notably Heppe and Galle. But 
a far larger number of leading authorities oppose this 
view, as Lipsius, Landerer, Nitsch, Herrlinger, Jacoby 
and Seeborg. The Herzog or Hauck Real-Encyclopaedia 
of Theology, which has been the great theological stand- 
ard, uniformly opposes this view. The whole subject is 
a large one, and we can only give the merest outline of 
it here. It is also made somewhat more difficult because 
of Melancthon's changing views on the Lord's Supper, 
as shown between the original Augsburg Confession and 
the Altered Augsburg Confession. For, between these 
two confessions, it is undoubted that Melancthon changed 
his views on the Lord's Supper. But did he change 
them enough so as to agree with Calvin on that doctrine? 
Galle, whose work, "Melancthon's Theology," was pub- 
lished in 1840, gives perhaps the clearest outline in 
favor of a Melancthonian-Calvinistic theology. He at- 
tempts to prove it: 

1. In his formulas, Melancthon speaks of the pres- 
ence of Christ, but not of the real presence of the body 
of Christ. 

2. He declares himself with the greatest decidedness 
against the doctrine of ubiquity. 

3. In his letters, he attacks the high-Lutheran doc- 
trine as artolotry. 

It is, however, to be noticed that there is a difference 
in kind between these arguments. The first is positive, 
the last two are negative, and tell what he does not be- 
lieve. They are, therefore, inferential. They do not 

* See my "History of the Reformed Church in the United 
States in the Nineteenth Century," pages 512-517. 



MELANCTHONIAN-CALVINISTIC THEOLOGY 175 



necessarily prove that Melancthon held to only a spiritual 
presence. The first is the line of argument on which the 
question must mainly be decided. For that takes up 
the crux to the whole question, — namely, what was the 
relation of the body of Christ to his presence in the 
elements ? 

For the doctrine of the Lord's Supper divides itself 
into two parts ; first, its relation to Christ, and second, 
its relation to the participant. It is with the former that 
we are here concerned. And even this is two-sided, as 
viewed from the human or the divine side. The ques- 
tion was not what was the relation of the bread and 
wine to the supernatural in the sacrament. That was 
the human side of it. It is with the other, the divine 
side of the sacrament, that we have to do, — with its 
relation not to the elements, but to the body of 
Christ. The question was, how the body and blood of 
Christ are related to the real presence and activity of the 
sacrament. The Catholics and Lutherans put the body 
of Christ in the Lord's Supper, though they differed in 
its relation to the elements ; the Catholics making the 
elements change into the body, the Lutherans not. Both 
put the body in the Lord's Supper ; but the Reformed, as 
Calvin, put it in heaven. That was the difference. Cal- 
vin's view was that we are to lift our minds by faith up 
to heaven, where Christ is, and then the spiritual influ- 
ence of that body would, like the rays of the sun, stream 
forth on us on earth. Where did Melancthon stand? 
Did he hold that Christ's body was on earth in the sac- 
rament. Of this there is no question in his earlier years, 
when he agreed with Luther. What did he hold in his 
later years? Did he differ from Luther far enough to 
be Reformed, for between Lutheran and Reformed 
views there are many shades of meaning. 



176 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



In his Opinion to Frederick he does not state anything 
except negatively on this point. His main contention 
was not a statement of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, 
but the proposition of a formula that would unite the 
Church of the Palatinate. This we must keep in mind. 
He gave what seems to have been a union formula. 
This was not necessarily Lutheran, for he had already 
proposed a revised statement in his Altered Augsburg 
Confession, which was large enough to give room for 
the Reformed. So that his statement in this Opinion 
is not conclusive about his view on the Lord's Supper, 
except that he was against the high-Lutherans. The 
Opinion shows he opposed ubiquity, as of Hesshuss and 
the Lutherans of Bremen. But that was only a negative 
argument. Opposition to ubiquity did not necessarily 
mean the absence of Christ's body from the sacrament. 
Ubiquity was extensive, the other was intensive. Viewed 
from the Reformed standpoint, the denial of ubiquity 
would seem to exclude the presence of Christ's body 
in the Lord's Supper. But to one coming from the 
Lutheran standpoint (for their perspective was different, 
as we shall in a moment show), there was nothing contra- 
dictory about it. The Lutheran was so obsessed with 
the idea of the local presence of Christ's body at the 
sacraments, that to him ubiquity was not necessary. 
Let us then turn from the Opinion to the crux of the 
whole matter, the statements of Melancthon about the 
presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Here it is to 
be noticed that there was one expression that Melancthon 
almost constantly used, — "Christus adest" (Christ is 
present) . 

What did he mean, — that Christ was bodily present 
or only spiritually present. Was that presence only a 
figure or a reality. We may take time to give only one 



MELANCTHONIAN-CALVINISTIC THEOLOGY 177 



instance.* The Frankford Recess, given only a few 
years before his death, says Christ is truly and essentially 
present and is given ("darreicht," given out) to Chris- 
tians. What did he mean by truly and essentially pres- 
ent. The word, "truly," may mean "really" over against 
an imaginary presence; although the Lutherans put a 
higher meaning into the phrase. But the word "essen- 
tially" is significant. We must remember that in the 
reformation they still used the Latin terminology. Since 
Kant made the distinction between the thing in itself and 
its accidents, such words as "essence" and "substance" 
have been idealized. But in reformation times those 
words were uniformly used in the Latin or Romish sig- 
nificance, as referring to essence, to substance in a ma- 
terial sense. Christ was present as to his essence. What 
was his essence? It was his divine-human person. This 
would bring in the body of Christ as present in the Sacra- 
ment. Herrlinger says: "Melancthon holds to a contact 
which goes out beyond mere spiritual activity, the con- 
tact of the soul with the glorified, yet living Redeemer, 
who is near to us bodily in the Lord's Supper." Lipsius 
says: "Melancthon held to the objective presence of the 
whole divine-human person of Christ." Jacoby says: 
"Melancthon held to the unconditional real presence of 
Christ in the Lord's Supper and rejected a subjective 
moral presence of Christ, which the Swiss inclined to." 

But let us not merely examine his words so as to 
get his position. It is necessary to go down below mere 
words, and get at the philosophical position from which 
he viewed matters. And here it is to be carefully not- 
iced that the Lutheran standpoint was essentially differ- 
ent from the Reformed. The Lutheran philosophical 

* See Herrlinger's "Theologie Melancthon," pages 156-162, 
for others. 

12 



i 7 8 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



stanpoint was, the likeness of the divine and human, — 
a tendency toward their unity. The Reformed was, the 
contrast between them, — a tendency toward their anti- 
thesis. Now it must not be forgotten that Melancthon, 
having been a Lutheran, approached the whole subject 
from the Lutheran standpoint, which had been his from 
the beginning. Calvin came to his position from the 
Reformed side. Now two men may express themselves 
in the same words; and yet coming from different 
standpoints, really hold different views, because they 
are only following out their previous positions. It is 
possible, for instance, in using the same word, that one 
person may lean to the material and the other to the 
spiritual meaning of it, or the one to the real and the 
other to the figurative meaning. And so it was possible 
here, for the one to emphasize divinity and the other 
humanity. This predisposition must be allowed for. 
Now, remembering that Melancthon came to his later 
views on the Lord's Supper from a Lutheran standpoint, 
is there any statement anywhere that he ever gave that 
up? There is none. On the other hand, is there any 
statement that Melancthon ever passed over to the Cal- 
vinistic view, which tended to separate the divine and 
human in Christ, and which placed the humanity in 
heaven, while his divinity was on earth? On this point 
there is a general agreement, — Melancthon made no such 
statement. On the contrary, Melancthon was careful 
to state that in the Lord's Supper there was not merely 
a spiritual influence, but something more, — namely, a 
bodily. There is not a single line, says Professor Rich- 
ard in his "Life of Melancthon," to show that he en- 
dorses Calvin's view of a glorified body and communion 
in heaven, to which the believer's soul is lifted by faith." 
He held that the communion takes place on earth in con- 



MELANCTHONIAN-CALVINISTIC THEOLOGY 179 



nection with the eating and drinking. Herrlinger says 
in "Hauck's Encyclopaedia/' Melancthon's view was, that 
Chirst is not only present, according to the spirit as in 
the Gospel, but he also communicates himself according 
to his substantial foundation of life. Seeborg says, "he 
distinctly maintains the bodily presence of Christ." 
These two views are so contradictory that they can not 
be united so as to form one theology. For the Calvin- 
istic excludes the presence of Christ's body from earth, 
the Melancthonian includes it. Now the body of Christ 
was either here on earth, or it was not. To this Melanc- 
thon said yes, Calvin said no. Now how can these be 
united into one. They are contradictory and thus show 
the contradictoriness of the Melancthonian-Calvinistic 
Theology. This contradiction is so great that the attempt 
to unite them runs into an absurdity. 

But there is still another aspect of this question. 
When we look at Melancthon's doctrine of the Lord's 
Supper, not merely in its basal principle or philosophy, 
but in its relation to other doctrines, what is the result? 
Here the prominent Lutheran doctrine of justification 
comes into prominence. Here the relation of the Melanc- 
thonian and Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord's Supper 
to justification is entirely different. According to Melanc- 
thon, the Lord's Supper is an element in our salvation. 
According to Calvin, the salvation is already completed 
and the main object of the Lord's Supper is the feeding 
or nourishing of the soul. According to Melancthon, 
the Lord's Supper is that part of the forgiveness which 
completes justification. According to Calvin, the Lord's 
Supper is the pledge of the justification which has 
already taken place. According to Melancthon, faith 
as justifying completes itself in the Lord's supper; ac- 
cording to Calvin, the Lord's Supper is based on the 



i8o THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



union already accomplished. According to Melancthon, 
the Lord's Supper was the completion of the mystical 
union with Christ, — the completion of faith by a real 
substantial life-union with Christ. According to Calvin, 
that life-union had been already accomplished. Melanc- 
thon tends to make the Lord's Supper the completing of 
a saving ordinance. Calvin made it a sealing ordinance 
of a salvation already accomplished. There was, there- 
fore, a signal difference on this point, which leads to 
large implications. For the two views are really differ- 
ent, and they cannot be united into one theology. The 
one makes it a saving ordinance, the other, a sealing 
ordinance. But an ordinance cannot be both saving and 
sealing at the same time. The one precludes the other. 
The sealing distinguished it from the saving. If the 
ordinance is saving, there is no need of a seal, for it 
saves in itself without the seal. The sealing is not neces- 
sary. Again, the sealing excludes the saving. The seal- 
ing looks upon the person as already saved, before the 
ordinance is administered. The mistake of the Catholic 
Church was, that she tried to unite the two in one ordi- 
nance and only brought confusion in ! the idea of the 
Lord's Supper. On the other hand, the Reformed were 
always clear in emphasizing the distinction. Calvin's 
view in regard to them was clear, — the Lord's Supper was 
sealing. While Melancthon, on the other hand, made it 
the completion of the saving ordinance. These two 
views are not contradictory as the last one noted above. 
But they are opposites, — contrasts, and cannot be united 
into one so as to make a Melancthonian-Calvinistic the- 
ology. 

From this survey it can easily be seen what were 
the differences of Melancthon's and Calvin's doctrine of 
the sacrament. It is evident that they did not agree 



MELANCTHONIAN-CALVINISTIC THEOLOGY 181 



on these two essential points. 

Let us now turn from Melancthon himself to the 
Melancthonians or Philipists, as they were then called. 
They reflected Melancthon's doctrine of the Lord's Sup- 
per. They became prominent, especially at two places 
in the sixteenth century, in Hesse and in Saxony. 

The Hessian theologians (1563) took decided ground 
against the Heidelberg catechism. They opposed it, es- 
pecially on two points.* 

1. That it holds that the real body of Christ is in 
heaven and it therefore cannot be communicated and 
received on earth. 

2. That it holds that "the right hand of God" is a 
place and not a quality. 

Their objection was reaffirmed in 1566.* 
This objection emphasizes the first point we have 
mentioned. 

More interesting perhaps is the action of the Melanc- 
thonians at Wittenberg, about 1571. They had pub- 
lished, what was called by their enemies, a Crypto-Cal- 
vinistic catechism, which used the Melancthonian phrase, 
that "Christ is truly and substantially present." They also 
published the Dresden Consensus, which says that "He 
communicates His true body and blood present there, — 
truly, livingly, substantially and certainly present." This 
would seem to teach, if anything can do so, the real ac- 
tive presence of Christ's body in the sacrament. After 
its publication, a significant episode occurred. The Elec- 
tor of Saxony, who always wanted to be a true Lutheran, 
sent a copy of the Dresden Consensus to the Reformed 
Count John Casimir of the Palatinate at Heidelberg. 

* See Heppe's "History of German Protestantism," Vol. 
II ; "Studien und Kritiken," 1867, page 31. 

* See Lenchter's "Antiqua Hesscrum Fides," 1607. 



1 82 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



What did the latter do but send him a letter, requesting 
him to ask his theologians in what it differed from the 
Heidelberg catechism. The Elector of Saxony gave his 
query to three bodies, the consistory of Meissen and the 
university faculties of Leipsic and Wittenberg, which 
were Melancthonian. All of them declared that they 
were against the doctrine of the Heidelberg catechism 
on the Lord's Supper. The Meissen deliverance de- 
clared their doctrine to be that of the Augsburg Con- 
fession and of Luther, that "Christ was present, truly, 
livingly, really and certainly," as Luther's catechism 
declared, that the Lord's Supper is His true body and 
blood. The Wittenberg faculty objected to the Heidel- 
berg catechism, that it was not clear on the Lord's Sup- 
per as was their Dresden Consensus, or their teacher, 
Melancthon had been. The Leipsic theologians objected 
to the Heidelberg catechism that its statements were 
general, not specific, as in the Lutheran creeds. They 
held with Luther's catechism that the Lord's Supper is 
"to eat and drink the body of Christ, which is given 
("darreicht," reached out to us) with the elements. But 
the Elector of Saxony does not seem to have been satis- 
fied, because the pressure of the high-Lutherans around 
him was very great. So Stoessel, who (as we have 
seen) had been a high-Lutheran at Heidelberg, in 1560, 
but was at this time a Melancthonian in Saxony, drew 
up a statement, in which he shows that the Dresden Con- 
sensus differs from the Heidelberg catechism; the main 
point being, that the Lutherans taught that "the real and 
true body of Christ was really distributed and enjoyed." 
All this shows that the Melancthonians held that Christ's 
body was present in the Lord's Supper. 

In all this, the objections of the Hessian as well as 
the Saxon theologians are based on our first point, — 



MELANCTHONIAN-CALVINISTIC THEOLOGY 183 



the real and essential difference of Melancthon and Cal- 
vin in their philosophical implications. Our opponents 
may try to parry this argument by the statement that 
these Saxons and Hessians later went over to the Re- 
formed faith. But that is not exactly correct. For only 
one of the three Saxon bodies became Reformed, the 
faculty of the university of Wittenberg. And they did 
not do so till forced out. But it is to be remembered 
that the university of Leipsic and the consistory of 
Meissen remained Lutheran. And as to Hesse, when 
Hesse became Reformed, forty years later, the leaders in 
I 5^3f who drew up the Opinion, had all died by that 
time, and died as good Lutherans. 

Now, in view of these facts, it is hard to see how 
Dr. Schaff could say that the Heidelberg catechism was 
Calvinistic-Melancthonian. Both the Hessian and Saxon 
theologians, who were Melancthonians, objected to its 
doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Melancthon's statements 
can never be harmonized with the 47th and 76th an- 
swers of the Heidelberg catechism, which place Christ's 
body in heaven. The truth is, that this Melancthonian- 
Calvinistic theology is a figment, built up on contradic- 
tions and opposites, so as to be absurd. It is without 
a foundation of proof when it is closely analyzed. It 
needs to be given up with other figments that have long 
played a part in history, such as the divine right of 
kings; or in theology, as that the atonement was a 
satisfaction to the devil. Melancthon and Calvin never 
came close enough on the Lord's Supper that their doc- 
trine can be united. All the arguments of the Melanc- 
thonian-Calvinistic adherents have been based on the 
merest inferences. And as the Mercersberg theology is 
now being given up, this doctrine, which was one of its 
foundations, needs also to be decently buried. 



CHAPTER III 



THE DEFENCE) OF THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM BY 
ELECTOR FREDERICK III 

The defence of the Heidelberg catechism, by Elector 
Frederick III, was the climax of his life. Nothing that 
he had done before, nothing that he ever did afterward, 
approached it in significance and grandeur. There he 
stood, one of the greatest princes of the German empire, 
before the great German diet and captured it, though 
hostile, by his eloquence and spirituality. He there gained 
permission for the use of his catechism. And his cate- 
chism has had a wider influence and produced greater 
results than anything else that he did. For he is not 
remembered, as was his predecessor (Otto Henry) or his 
two successors (Frederick IV and Frederick V) by the 
splendid buildings he built in the castle at Heidelberg. 
There is nothing at Heidelberg today that reminds one 
of him. His district of the Palatinate has been obliter- 
ated and absorbed in other duchies and counties. He 
would be forgotten, were it not for his catechism. But 
that great book is enough to give him earthly immor- 
tality. And the greatest and noblest act of his life, 
when he rose to his highest height, was at his defense of 
his catechism at Augsburg in 1566. Though this diet 
was less important than that at Worms, and Frederick 
was only a layman, yet the scene is worthy of being 
placed alongside of Luther's magnificent plea at the diet 
of Worms. For this was as critical a time for the Re- 
formed Church as Worms for the whole Protestant 



184 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S DEFENCE 185 



Church. And that crisis drew from Frederick his best 
powers. That great, great event has never been properly- 
portrayed, especially in English.* So especially as some 
things about it have been left in a hazy light, we will 
here study this magnificent event in the history of our 
catechism. 

The storm, that had been gathering ever since the 
publication of the Heidelberg catechism early in 1563, 
broke around Frederick's head three years later. An 
effort was made to stay the growing opposition by the 
holding of a conference at Maulbronn, in 1564. But it 
only resulted in widening the breach between the Palatin- 
ate and the Wurtemberg divines, as it revealed more 
clearly their decided difference about the doctrine of 
ubiquity. To the early opponents of the catechism, Duke 
Christopher of Wurtemberg and Duke Wolfgang of Zwei- 
briicken, were now added a number of Catholic bishops 
who claimed that Frederick had taken away their en- 
dowments and despoiled their churches. So finally the 
Emperor, Maximilian, summoned a diet to meet at Augs- 
burg in 1566. The notice of the diet was sent out Janu- 
ary 4, 1566, and gave the three topics to be discussed at 
the diet. 

1. How to bring the Christian religion to a better 
understanding. 

2. How to check the destructive and corrupting sects. 

3. How the Turks might be checked. 

It was under the second of these that Frederick's 
case came, as Zwinglianism and Calvinism were looked 

* Would that some painter had risen to paint this scene at 
the Diet of Augsburg, as the companion picture to Farel's Call 
to Calvin in Geneva (1536), the most dramatic scene in Re- 
formed Church history, except, perhaps, Beza's Defense before 
the French Court, at Poissy, in 1561. 



\ 

1 86 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



upon in Germany as sects. Frederick, as soon as he had 
received notice of the call for a diet, began to realize 
the danger that was threatening him and began negotia- 
tions with other Protestant princes to head off his op- 
ponents. He especially urged that they should all empha- 
size unity and not division; and that they should unite 
in order to strengthen the emperor in his inclination 
toward Protestantism. 

The answers he received were various. The Land- 
grave of Hesse was favorable. But all his efforts with 
the Dukes of Wurtemberg and Zweibriicken were of no 
avail. Frederick went to the trouble to take a journey 
into Thuringia, and while there he met Elector Augustus 
of Saxony. The latter had before been unfriendly to 
Frederick's Calvinism, for he prided himself on his Luth- 
eranism. But he now received Frederick in a very 
friendly manner. This meeting proved to be of the great- 
est importance at the diet, for without doubt it was 
Elector Augustus of Saxony who saved Frederick at that 
diet. Frederick only found out, through his negotiations, 
how great his danger was, for it was evident that the 
Dukes of Wurtemberg and Zweibriicken were moving 
heaven and earth to bring about an agreement among the 
Protestant princes, by which Frederick, because of his 
Calvinistic novelties, would be placed outside of the Augs- 
burg Peace. He was in danger of being deposed from 
his electorate as Electors John Frederick of Saxony and 
Herman of Cologne had been before. 

The danger was so great that his brother, Count Rich- 
ard, warned him not to go to the diet at all, but to be 
represented by his statesmen as some of the other princes 
were. But such timidity was foreign to Frederick. He 
wrote to his brother a letter which breathes a true martyr 
spirit : 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S DEFENCE 187 



"I stand in the comforting hope in my dear and true 
Father in heaven, that his mighty power would use me 
as an instrument to publicly confess his name in the holy 
realm of the German empire in these later days, not only 
with the mouth, but in deed and truth, as once my be- 
loved brother-in-law, Duke John Frederick of Saxony, 
the deceased Elector, has also done. And although I am 
not so presumptuous as to compare my intellect with his, 
yet I also know that the same God, who then kept him 
in the right and true knowledge of His Gospel, still lives 
and is so mighty as to keep me a poor and simple man; 
so that he can and will certainly keep me by His Holy 
Spirit; even though matters should proceed so far as to 
cost blood. And if it should please my dear Father in 
Heaven to give me such honor, I could never sufficiently 
praise Him for it, either here in time or yonder in eter- 
nity." 

One who could so write was already victorious. And 
so he went cheerfully to the diet. 

The diet opened on March 25 with great splendor. 
Emperor Maximilian, to the surprise of the Protestants, 
at its beginning showed strong leanings to the Catholic 
party and against the Protestants. One of the most im- 
portant aspects of this diet, for the future of the Heidel- 
berg catechism, was the attitude of the Emperor Maxi- 
milian in regard to this case. On this point historians 
have not been in agreement. Hausser and Harbaugh 
make him out as mild in his rule toward Protestants and 
friendly toward Frederick. But Kluckhohn, Frederick's 
biographer, tells a different story, and he seems to be 
right, — that Maximilian was very bitter against Fred- 
erick's introduction of Calvinism into the German empire. 
It has been suggested that from what Maximilian had 
seen of the Reformed in France and the Netherlands, he 
gained the impression that they were rebels, and he did 
not want that rebellious spirit to be imported into Ger- 



1 88 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



many. He had already enough trouble without it. 
Instinctively he seems to have felt, as King James I, of 
England, later expressed it, that royalty and presbytery 
go not well together, — that aristocracy, whether in Church 
or state, did not harmonize with the republican spirit of 
the Reformed. But whatever may have been his reason, 
certain it is that he was the leader against Frederick in 
this diet. This attitude of Maximilian makes Frederick's 
victory at the diet all the more remarkable, for already 
it seemed very doubtful, with the princes, Catholic and 
Protestant, against him. And now the emporer's attitude 
made it almost impossible. 

Well, where did Frederick have any friends? There 
were only two among the German princes. But one, 
Landgrave Philip of Hesse, was not present, on account 
of his age, and so was represented by deputies. The 
other, Elector Augustus of Saxony, was present ; but be- 
fore Frederick arrived (for Frederick was not present at 
the opening of the diet) he, too, seems to have been 
swept along by Frederick's enemies, the Dukes of Wurt- 
emberg and Zweibrucken, who used every effort to unite 
the Protestant princes against Frederick. 

It was, therefore, high time for his arrival when Fred- 
erick at last came to Augsburg. Already these two Dukes 
had, on March 31, opened the meeting of the Evangeli- 
cal States, as the Protestants were called, with their plan 
that in their official statement to be made to the emperor, 
Frederick was not to be permitted to subscribe to it, be- 
cause they did not consider him a Lutheran. But it 
seems that the arrival of Frederick proved somewhat 
of a check to them. He went at once to the Elector of 
Saxony, and stated that he desired to subscribe to their 
declaration to the Emperor. When Augustus made this 
known to the Protestant states they declared that he must 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S DEFENCE 189 



roundly and fully declare his adherence to the Lutheran 
doctrine of the Lord's Supper. And they produced a 
formula that they required him to sign. But at this, 
Elector Augustus gave expression to his dissatisfaction. 
For he was jealous of what seemed to him to be an at- 
tempt of Wurtemberg to control everything. Besides, he 
had brought with him his professor, Peucer, the son-in- 
law of Melancthon, who continually warned him against 
the theologians of Wurtemberg, that they were not sound 
Lutherans because they were introducing the new doctrine 
of ubiquity. He, therefore, gave expression to the 
thought that, if they were going to shut Frederick out 
of the peace because he introduced the new doctrines of 
Calvinism, Wurtemberg would also need to be looked 
after for introducing the new doctrine of ubiquity. He, 
therefore, declared that he was not willing to have Fred- 
erick shut out. There may have been another reason, a 
political one, why Elector Augustus took this position. 
It was that if Frederick was deposed as an Elector, he 
did not know where this would stop. His predecessor, 
John Frederick, had been so deposed. And perhaps the 
thought may have come to his mind that after they had 
done away with Frederick for his Calvinism, he might 
be the next one to be deposed for his Melancthonianism, 
which was not at all popular in many parts of Germany, 
especially if the hot-headed Duke of Wurtemberg got 
control. Besides the fact that this deposition of Fred- 
erick would be done by a Catholic emperor, was putting 
too much power into their hands, which they might use 
to depose all Protestant Electors. He seems to have had 
more foresight than any of the Protestant princes there. 
But whatever his reason, he held back from setting Fred- 
erick outside the Peace of Augsburg. 

When all this was made known to Frederick, he ex- 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



pressed surprise that his orthodoxy should be questioned. 
He made a reply on April 25 that he had never yet re- 
jected the Augsburg Confession, but that what he rejected 
was the new doctrine of ubiquity of the high-Lutherans, 
which was also rejected by Saxony, the Mark, Hesse, 
Denmark and other Churches. He urged the Protestants 
not to allow any division to come between them as unity 
against the Catholics was so greatly needed. As to his 
catechism, it was not opposed to the Augsburg Confession, 
but like it was based on the Bible and the ecumenical 
creeds and councils. As all were agreed that the body 
and blood of Christ were present in the Lord's Supper, 
the strife had become largely a matter of words. If he 
were shut out it would be an injustice. And he reminded 
them that the hot theological leaders, who condemned 
one prince today, would condemn another tomorrow. He 
especially prayed Elector Augustus to prevent a division 
among the Protestants at that diet. Let them all become 
united in a deliverance to the Emperor, he said, and their 
theological differences could be settled later. 

This able plea for unity still further won Elector 
Augustus, who already sympathized with Frederick 
against ubiquity. He, therefore, declared that he was op- 
posed to any ostracism of Frederick or the insertion 
of any clause condemning Zwinglianism. Thus the Prot- 
estant princes were not able to come into unity in ostra- 
cizing Frederick. Nevertheless, the two Dukes labored to 
bring it about, and as late as May 11 they introduced 
a paper showing that Frederick's doctrines were not in 
accord with the Augsburg Confession, and, therefore, 
ought not to be permitted in Germany. 

But before they attained their end the Emperor him- 
self took a hand in the matter. The Protestants had 
failed to unite in isolating Frederick. What they could 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S DEFENCE 



not do, the Catholics rose up to do in another way. The 
bishop of Worms and the chapters of Neuhaus and Sins- 
heim, whose property Frederick had sequestered, now 
brought complaints against him. What capped this mat- 
ter was that a weak Lutheran prince, Margrave Philibert 
of Baden, should lend himself to be their tool. It seems 
that he, with Frederick, ruled the principality of Spon- 
heim in western Germany. Both had introduced Prot- 
estantism into that district, but Frederick had gone 
farther than Philibert, and had cast out all relics of 
papacy, as altars, etc., and had tried to introduce the 
Palatinate liturgy, which was Reformed. Against the 
introduction of such novelties, Philibert entered complaint 
against Frederick. These complaints were given to Fred- 
erick, and he was required to give an answer within two 
days. But as they did not come into his hands until the 
close of the first of the two days, he had very little time 
for preparation. 

Then Maximilian, after a conference with the Prot- 
estant States, issued a decree against Frederick. The de- 
cree was that Frederick must give up the endowments 
he had taken from the chapters of Neuhaus and Sinz- 
heim, and set aside his novelties in Sponheim. The decree 
also ordered that all the Calvinistic novelties, which he 
had introduced into his churches and schools, were to be 
cast out. If he did not do this he would be deposed, 
and the Elector's hat would be transferred to his son, 
Lewis. The dukes had triumphed. The ban of the em- 
pire was about to be placed of Frederick. We thus see 
how nearly did it come to pass that the Heidelberg cate- 
chism should be utterly suppressed in Germany. Had it 
been done we never would have had our catechism. All 
this reveals the tremendous crisis on Frederick, with the 
probability of his loosing his case. Nothing saved him 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



and his catechism, — but himself. And the fourteenth of 
May, 1566, in which he made this memorable defense, 
will ever go down in the history of our Church as one 
of its greatest days. 

On the fourteenth of May the Elector called .the diet 
together in order to have the decree against Frederick 
ratified. But one voice was lifted up against the pro- 
cedure. The Elector of Saxony declared that the whole 
matter was done in too much haste. He did not publicly 
oppose it, though he thought it wrong. Immediately after 
this Frederick received the command from the marshal of 
the realm to appear before the Emperor. He came, ex- 
pecting to make a defense against the charges brought 
by the Catholics and Philibert. But instead he was sum- 
moned to defend himself before a decree that had a much 
wider ranger than that, — namely, his threatened deposi- 
tion. The whole method was a violation of all German 
custom. What most agitated Frederick was the fact that 
the decree was not first published before the Protestant 
States before it was acted on by the German diet. Such 
an act as this threatened the rights and liberties of the 
Protestants. Another impropriety was that he had to 
make his defense, not only before the Protestant princes, 
but before the Catholic princes also. He considered that 
their presence prejudiced the case as they were all against 
him. Such were the odds against him. But quickly re- 
covering himself, he recognized the great issue at stake. 
And he asked for a brief time to think the matter over, 
only remarking as he went out, that one of the two points 
in the decree touched his conscience, over which God 
alone was the sovereign. 

Hardly a quarter of an hour had elapsed before Fred- 
erick again entered the diet-chamber, attended by three 
of his leading councilors. He was, according to a com- 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S DEFENCE 



mon tradition, also attended by his son, John Casimir, 
who carried a Bible after his father. Frederick, first of 
all, complained that he had been condemned unheard; 
that the judgment had been given before his defense had 
been made. He had confidence in his imperial majesty, 
that what was accorded to the lowest criminal would 
be accorded to him. He then continued : 

"Although I have hitherto not been able to come to a 
perfectly clear understanding on the precise points to 
which charges have been presented against me and re- 
quisitions made; yet so much I promise myself, from the 
reasonableness of his Imperial Majesty, that he will 
not commence the process by the execution of the sen- 
tence, but that he will graciously hear and weigh the de- 
fence I shall make; which, if it were required, I would be 
ready to make undaunted in the centre of the market place 
in this town. So far as matters of a religious nature are in- 
volved, I confess freely that in those things which concern 
the conscience, I acknowledge as Master, only Him, who 
is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. For the question 
here is not in regard to a cap of flesh, but it pertains to the 
soul and its salvation, for which I am indebted alone to 
my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and which, as his gift, 
I will sacredly preserve. Therefore I cannot grant your 
Imperial Majesty the right of standing in the place of 
my God and Saviour. 

"What men understand by Calvinism I do not know. 
This I can say with a pure conscience that I have never 
read Calvin's writings. But the agreement at Frankford 
and the Augsburg Confession that I signed at Naumberg, 
together with the other princes, of whom the majority 
are here present, in this faith I continue firmly, on no 
other ground than because I find it established in the Holy 
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Nor do I 
believe that any one can successfully show that I have 
done or received anything that stands opposed to that 
creed. But that my catechism, word for word, is drawn, 
not from human, but from divine sources, the references 
that stand in the margin will show. For this reason also 

13 



i 9 4 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



certain theologians have in vain wearied themselves in 
attacking it, since it has been shown them by the open 
Scriptures how baseless is their opposition. What I have 
elsewhere publicly declared to your Majesty in a full 
assembly of princes ; namely, that if any one of whatever 
age, station or class he may be, even the humblest, can 
teach me something better from the Holy Scriptures, I 
will thank him from the bottom of my heart and be readily 
obedient to the divine truth. This I now repeat in the 
presence of this assembly of the whole empire. If there 
be any one here among my lords and friends who will 
undertake it, I am prepared to hear him and here are the 
Scriptures at hand. Should it please your Imperial Ma- 
jesty to undertake this task, I would regard it as the 
greatest favor and acknowledge it with suitable gratitude. 
With this, my explanation, I hope your Imperial Majesty 
will be satisfied, even as also your Imperial Majesty's 
father, the Emperor Ferdinand of blessed memory, was 
not willing to do violence to my conscience, however 
pleasant it would have been to him, had I consented to 
attend the popish mass at the imperial coronation at 
Frankford.* Should contrary to my expectations, my de- 
fense and the Christian and reasonable conditions which 
I have proposed, not be regarded of an any account, I 
shall comfort myself in this that my Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ has promised to me and to all who believe 
that whatsoever we lose on earth for His name's sake,, 
we shall receive an hundred fold in the life to come." 

Thus with a martyr-like willingness to loose all for 
Christ, he closed by passing out of the domain of law, 
German or other, into the realm of conscience, which 
no man can force. The Christian courage, the deep con- 
scientiousness and the great spiritual force, revealed in 
his address, made a most profound impression on the. 
diet, even on his enemies. It is too much to say that he 

*■ On that occasion Frederick, in his Puritanic reaction against 
everything "papistic," refused to attend the Catholic service 
of the coronation. 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S DEFENCE 195 



had won his antagonists, but they were awed for the 
moment. His solitary friend was quick to seize the psy- 
cological moment. For Elector Augustus of Saxony 
clapped Frederick on the shoulder in the presence of the 
Emperor and the assembled princes, and said: "Fritz, 
you are more pious than all of us." He evidently spoke 
what all felt after hearing such an address. And Mar- 
grave Charles, of Baden, the brother-in-law of Frederick, 
who did not belong to the high-Lutheran party, at the 
end of the session, gave his judgment to some nobles 
standing around him, "Why do we attack this prince, 
when he is more pious than we are?" This was true, 
for there was not a prince in all that diet that had the 
spirituality of Frederick. The only whisper of dissent 
that broke the silence after the address was from the 
Cardinal of Augsburg, who reproached Frederick that 
he had called the mass a papal abomination. It is also an 
interesting fact to note, that when Frederick made his 
address, there were at that diet and may have been pres- 
ent in its session, two men who saw its wonderful im- 
pression with very different feelings. The one was Hess- 
huss, who was there as the court-preacher of duke of 
Zweibrucken, who saw the catechism he hated permitted 
to be used in Germany. The other was Dr. John Crato, 
the patron of Ursinus, who saw the catechism composed 
by his protege, thus vindicated. He doubtless felt re- 
warded for all he had done for Ursinus as a student. 

The one who was most disappointed seems to have 
been the Emperor Maximilian himself. He had hoped 
that the whole matter could be quickly and easily settled 
and Frederick ostracized. He was greatly dissatisfied 
with Frederick's defense of his faith and of his cate- 
chism. So as the enemies of Frederick had thus far 
failed to gain their end, other tactics were now resorted 



196 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



to. Since Frederick claimed to adhere to the Altered 
Augsburg Confession, the Emperor determined to get the 
Protestant States to declare that they adhered to the Un- 
altered Augsburg Confession, which would shut Frederick 
out. In this he was assisted by the Dukes of Wurtem- 
berg and Zweibriicken. 

So five days later (Map 19) the Emperor gathered 
the councilors of Saxony and Brandenburg (the Elector 
of Brandenburg was not at the diet, the Elector of 
Saxony in the meantime had gone home), together with 
the other Protestant princes. He reminded them of what 
Frederick had said in his defense, that he adhered to the 
Augsburg Confession as far as it agreed with the Bible.* 
And he asked them whether they still recognized Fred- 
erick as one of their number. At this the councilors of 
Saxony ( for Elector Augustus had left behind him one of 
the most astute members of the diet, a councilor named 
Lindamuth) declared that they were without instructions 
in the matter, and they would have to ask the decision of 
their master on a matter so important. And they thought 
that in view of its far-reaching effect, the other Lutheran 
States, some of them not present, ought to be heard from. 
They asked for delay, which the Emperor reluctantly 
granted. But the Saxon councilors became only the more 
convinced that the act of the Emperor was only a secret 
play to get more of the control of Germany into the 
hands of the Catholics. They gained the support of the 
Hessian, Baden and other delegates, who finally de- 
manded that if any action was taken against Frederick as 
a Calvinist, similar action ought to be taken against those 
who held to the doctrine of ubiquity. So finally the 
Protestants presented a declaration to the Emperor, stat- 
ing that Frederick was an adherent of the Augsburg 

* This was exactly the position that Luther used to take. 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S DEFENCE 197 



Confession on the doctrine of justification and other 
articles of faith. And as to the one article about the 
Lord's Supper, they could not disown him. They assured 
the Elector that they steadfastly held to the Augsburg 
Confession and would not allow any sect, Zwinglian or 
Calvinistic, to find a place in their churches. And they 
were unwilling to give into the hands of others (the Cath- 
olics) who did not belong to their party, the decision 
as to who was recognized as an adherent of the Augs- 
burg Confession. For under this pretence there might be 
injustice done (to Protestants). And finally they also re- 
minded the Catholics, that they too had their own differ- 
ences among themselves, as in regard to justification (re- 
ferring to Cardinal Contarini's Evangelical doctrine of 
justification) and other doctrines. 

Thus, Frederick was saved a second time. But the 
Emperor was not satisfied. He still labored at the matter, 
and on May 23 he again tried to have the decree of May 
14 passed, but in vain. But by this time the opposition 
to it had solidified into a group who steadfastly opposed 
it. Moreover, the repeated actions of the Emperor only 
made the Saxon councilors the more suspicious of a 
Catholic trick in it all, and they were firmer than ever 
in preventing any action of the Protestants against Fred- 
erick. But while the Evangelical States, through the 
Saxon councilors, nullified the intrigues of the Catholic 
party, they were also, on the other hand, greatly exer- 
cised to show that they did not belong to those who 
held to Frederick's doctrine of the Lord's Supper. They, 
therefore, on May 23, sent for Frederick, and through 
the Saxon councilors gave him a most earnest admonition 
about his doctrine of the Lord's Supper. To this Fred- 
erick answered through his chancellor, Probus, that as 
to the Lord's Supper he taught nothing else in his cate- 



198 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



chism and allowed nothing else to be preached than what 
was in the Augsburg Confession. So finally, on the 
morning of May 24, a meeting of all the Protestant States 
was held. Frederick was present, attended by his 
chancellors and his son, John Casimir. He was there 
very sharply charged that what was taught by his theo- 
logians in his churches and schools, yes, by himself at the 
diet, was more dangerous than anything taught by Calvin 
and Ecolampadius. And they earnestly asked him to de- 
sist from this, at least until a conference could be called. 

And now we come to his second great address at the 
diet. He agreed with their last declaration to the Em- 
peror and hoped they would ever carefully guard against 
division and would always remember that what happened 
to one today might happen to another tomorrow. He 
then again declared his adherence to the Augsburg Con- 
fession. But that as to the Lord's Supper he was ready 
to be instructed out of the Bible. Of Calvin's and 
Zwingli's doctrines he knew nothing and had nothing to 
do with them. Then he took the Bible, laid it on the 
table and urged all who were present to teach him some- 
thing better out of the Bible. But no one among them 
was willing to enter the lists (for Frederick was evidently 
recognized as not only the most spiritually-minded among 
them, but the best versed in the Bible). He continued, 
therefore, saying that if he were reproached for having 
weakened from the Augsburg Confession, he could 
understand it in no other way than that he had gone back 
on his subscription to that Confession (which he had 
before denied). 

This second address of Frederick, like the one of 
May 14, made a deep impression on those gathered there, 
and for a time there was silence. Then they all united 
on the holding of another conference at Erfurt, in order 



ELECTOR FREDERICK'S DEFENCE 



to come to a closer union. Frederick to the last refused 
to drive away his teachers and professors without any 
trial ; he also declared that he would not order their books 
to be destroyed. And he finally reminded them that one 
could as little dictate order in his realm as would please 
the others. He asked whether they wanted to start 
strife because of what had happened at this diet. None 
of them was willing, for they recognized his greatness 
of mind and the need of unity. 

Frederick left Augsburg on the afternoon of that day. 
but before he left, he was dismissed graciously by the 
Emperor. And yet Maximilian, though appearing here 
friendly to Frederick, was none the less determined to 
exterminate Calvinism in his realm. For on that very day 
he expressed himself bitterly against the Evangelical 
States for their decision, and praised Mecklenburg for its 
(high-Lutheran) stand, but ridiculed Lindamuth. Fred- 
erick also bade good-bye to the Spiritual Electors, who 
were all Catholic, with whom was the papal legate. These, 
like their sovereign, were gracious to him. Frederick 
then gave a farewell banquet to the Protestant princes 
and left Augsburg. 

He returned to Heidelberg on the Friday before Whit- 
Sunday. He was welcomed with great joy by his people, 
some of whom looked upon him as resurrected from the 
dead; for the rumor had repeatedly come that he was 
deposed; yes, that he had been beheaded. The next day 
he publicly joined with the congregation in the Holy 
Ghost Church at Heidelberg at the service preparatory 
to the communion. At that service he grasped Olevianus' 
hand and publicly admonished all the congregation to the 
same faithfulness as had animated him. On that Sunday 
he, with his son John Casimir and the court, partook of 
the holy communion. 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



The conference was held at Erfurt the next Septem- 
ber, but it turned out to be a small one and was of little 
importance. None of the princes were present in person, 
and only a few sent deputies. The opposition against 
Frederick seemed to have burned itself out and a reaction 
to have taken place. Even Duke Christopher of Wurtem- 
berg had had his eyes opened in the meanwhile to the 
great danger to Protestantism in Germany, that came 
through all this effort against Frederick. And he in- 
structed his delegates against voting for Frederick's con- 
demnation. He was, however, angered by the attack 
made there on ubiquity, and started a movement toward 
calling a synod of all Germany. This, fortunately for 
Frederick, found little favor among the princes. 

And so Frederick finally gained victory for his cause, 
and the Heidelberg catechism was allowed to be tolerated 
in Germany. But it is none the less true, as Prof. Boquin, 
the oldest professor of theology in his university, said at 
in his funeral address on Frederick, "When it comes to 
martyrdom, to joyful willingness to suffer for the right- 
eousness of the matter, dare we not truthfully count 
this pious prince among the martyrs of Christ." And 
we can join in this tribute. For Frederick, like Saul 
among Israel, rose head and shoulders above all, even 
the Emperor, at this diet. He was the uncrowned king 
there. And we can not thank him enough for this de- 
fense, which, as almost by a miracle, preserved to us 
our catechism. All honor to Frederick for his deep 
spirituality and wonderful eloquence at this diet ! 



B 

CASPER OLEVIANUS 



CHAPTER IV 

THE THREATENED MARTRYDOM OE OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 

(1559) 

Before Casper Olevianus became one of the authors 
of our catechism he had to pass through a baptism of 
fire. When our catechism so beautifully speaks of this 
life as a "vale of tears," — a via dolorosa, — Olevianus 
knew by actual experience what that meant: for almost 
out of the fires of martyrdom at Treves he came to Heidel- 
berg to write the catechism. Recently Rev. Julius Ney, 
the pastor of the beautiful Memorial Church of the Pro- 
test, at Spires, Germany (the Church which commemor- 
ates the Protest of 1529, from which we are all called 
Protestants), has published two interesting articles, en- 
titled, "The Reformation in Treves." The fact that they 
are based on his original researches in the archives of 
Coblence, Spires, Zweibriicken and elsewhere, gives them 
great value and authority. Heretofore, except in Siid- 
hofFs "Olevianus and Ursinus," we have had only brief 
glimpses of Olevianus' life at Treves, but these articles 
throw a flood of light on the subject. Olevianus was at 
Treves only six months in 1559, but he went through 
more in that brief time than in all the rest of his life. 
The story of it reveals his great ability as a preacher, and 

201 



202 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 

also his heroism. This part of the life of the author of 
our catechism ought to stir us who love the catechism 
to high devotion; yes, even martyrdom for our day, if 
necessary. 

The history of this period divides itself into three 
parts : 

1. The early preaching of Olevianus (August 10 to 
September 17). 

2. The first entrance of the Elector of Treves (Sep- 
tember 17 to October 26). 

3. The second entrance of the Elector of Treves 
(October 26 to December 31). 

It was in June, 1559, that Casper Olevianus came 
back to his native city, in order to preach the gospel. 
(Farel, the great reformer, had first told him that it was 
his duty to go home and preach the gospel. And the 
consistory of Geneva, in response to letters from Treves 
asking for Protestant services, had appointed him). But 
it seemed a foolhardy thing for this young theologue, just 
out of Calvin's Theological Seminary at Geneva, to at- 
tempt such a thing. For Treves was the seat of one of 
the great Catholic Electors of Germany. It prided itself 
on having been attached to Catholicism for fourteen 
centuries, — that is, since the days of Constantine the 
Great, — indeed, so faithfully attached that it had received 
the name of Holy Treves. And besides all this it had, 
just before Olevianus' time, become the guardian of the 
"Holy Coat of Christ," a very sacred relic which was 
worshipped there every few years, as it was publicly 
shown. In view of all this, what possibility was there 
that such a devoted Catholic city would at all allow 
Protestantism to enter. Olevianus was like a man put- 
ting his head into a lion's mouth in attempting it. In- 
deed it almost looked as if he, like the early Christians, 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



203 



courted martyrdom, which indeed, as we shall see, he 
narrowly escaped. 

On his arrival his first act was to get a position so as 
to be able to live. On June 26, the records say he made 
application to the city council for a position as teacher. 
In his request he expressed a desire that he might be 
of service to his native city, that his recently deceased 
father had, at great expense, educated his two sons and 
had often admonished them to exhibit thankfulness to 
their city. As he did not wish to be a burden to his 
widowed mother, he desired to use his talents for the 
benefit of the youth of the city. He preferred to labor 
there at a smaller salary than he could get elsewhere. 
The city council accepted his request, for it, on its part, 
was somewhat proud of him, as although only 23 years 
of age, he bore the title of Doctor (he had received the 
title of Doctor of Laws at the university of Bourges), 
and he is generally named on the records of the archives 
as "Doctor" or "Doctor Casper." He was to receive a 
salary of 100 gulden (about $40.00), and was to deliver 
lectures on logic and philosophy, on which subject no 
lectures had been delivered at the university of Treves 
for some time. They were to be delivered in a school 
building endowed for that purpose, but unused. The 
rector of the university seems not to have been informed 
of this arrangement, and when he learned of it he said: 
"Teach courageously out of the Bible, for the priests 
greatly need it." This Olevianus proceeded to do by 
using the Logic of Melancthon, in which there were many 
doctrines and proof-texts from the Bible, which he uti- 
lized to teach gospel truth. But as these lectures had to 
be given in the Latin language, the number of his hearers 
was small. This did not suit such an active young 
preacher like him, and the smallness of his audience was 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



especially galling to him, for the priests, who were his 
first opposers as they already smelt the heresy of Prot- 
estantism, ridiculed him on that account. 

I. THE EARLY PREACHING OF OLEVIANUS 

He, therefore, a little over a month after his arrival, 
sought a wider sphere of influence, and on one of the 
city's buildings, the Steip, he nailed, on August 9th, a 
notice that on the following day, which was a great Cath- 
olic festival day, St. Lawrence Day, he would, between 
8 A. M. and 10 A. M., preach in his school in the German 
language. He also gathered the children and began 
teaching them the German catechism. He did not wait 
to get permission of the city council to do this, but it is 
probable that he had an understanding with some of its 
members, who were inclined to Protestantism, about the 
matter. For the scandalous lives of the clergy had caused 
a number of the citizens to incline to Protestantism. One 
of the priests complained, in 1548, to the synod that the 
clergy preached on Christ's fasting in the wilderness, but 
they lived after the fashion of Epicurus, — they lay fasts 
in others, but themselves keep bacchanalian festivals. 
Some of the Protestants were among the most prominent 
in the city, as John Steuss, the head burgomaster of the 
city, who had been in the city council for thirty years, 
and for six years had been at the head of the city's gov- 
ernment. With him was his brother, Peter, the head of 
the weaver's guild; also some of the sheriffs and mem- 
bers of the city council, as Peter Sirck and Otto Seel. 
They had become more hopeful of a Protestant move- 
ment since it had been introduced into neighboring dis- 
tricts, as Beldenz and Zweibriicken, and neighboring 
towns, as Trarbach. Calvin had had a letter from Sirck 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



205 



and Seel, and it was a letter from them to Geneva, that 
had led the Genevese to send a preacher in Olevianus. 

On the next day, his birthday, Olevianus preached to 
a great crowd that rilled his school. Many, instead of 
going to mass, went to hear what novelty he, like Paul of 
Athens, would tell. Among them was the secretary of 
the city council, Dronkman, a devoted Catholic, who be- 
came one of Olevianus' greatest enemies, and yet he is 
a very important character to us in this study, as it is 
to his diary that we owe almost all our knowledge of 
what happened to Olevianus here, for he was a very care- 
ful secretary and kept a fine record of events. It seems 
strange that a Catholic, Olevianus' worst enemy, should 
be his best witness to us. It is to Dronkman that we owe 
an account of what Olevianus preached upon at that 
first service. Olevianus might have preached an irenic 
gospel, — that is, not attacked Catholicism, and perhaps 
that would have been wise at that time. But Olevianus, 
like Paul at Athens, when his soul was stirred up within 
him at the idolatry around him, seems to have been roused 
by the gross superstitions of Treves. His sermon was 
against Catholic errors, such as the mass, processions, the 
worship of saints, etc. His sermon was received with 
joy by some, but with hatred by others. Dronkman de- 
clared that his impression was that it would cause an 
uproar in the city, and he proved a true prophet, as we 
shall see. 

Two days later the preaching of Olevianus was 
brought before the city council by a Catholic, — Nuss- 
baum, — who asked that it be prohibited. Olevianus was, 
therefore, called before the council. This was his first 
appearance before the city council, but not by any means 
his last: for he, like Paul before the Sanhedrim, had to 
repeatedly defend his new faith. He there declared that 



2o6 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



"he was ready to stop preaching if so ordered by the 
council." That day it did not come to a prohibition of his 
preaching, but the next day he wrote to the council, ask- 
ing that there might be no hasty decision, as many of 
the citizens had not heard him or knew of the matter 
only by hearsay, and it would not be right to condemn 
him unheard. He declared that his doctrine was taken 
from no other source than the Word of God. He promised 
that if allowed to continue teaching, he would do so peace- 
ably. So having had an understanding with the Evan- 
gelical members of the council he again preached that day, 
Sunday, August 13. On that day a meeting of the city 
council was held, the Catholics being in the majority, but 
its Evangelical members defended his preaching. They 
prevented any action against him by shrewdly suggest- 
ing that the matter be referred to the different guilds, 
which, at that time, were of the greatest influence in every 
German town. 

This reference of the matter to the guilds revealed 
an interesting situation. Of the thirteen guilds of the 
city, the weavers was by far the most influential. It had 
eight members in the city council. It was the one that 
was most inclined toward Protestantism, and it voted that 
Olevianus should continue to preach and teach. They 
offered that if the city would not pay his salary they 
would do so, and, if the city would not allow him the 
school building for preaching, they would provide a place. 
The tailor's guild also decided favorably to Olevianus' 
preaching. The smiths, to whom there belonged a num- 
ber of rich goldsmiths, also desired him to preach. Thus 
three guilds were in his favor. Of the remaining ten 
guilds, eight declared their willingness to have him con- 
tinue his teaching in Latin, but that his school building 
should not be used for his preaching in German. Only 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



207 



two guilds — the butchers' and grocers' — wanted him en- 
tirely silenced. As a result of this action of the guilds, 
he was not permitted to preach in the school, but he was 
not forbidden to preach elsewhere. So the Evangelical 
members of the city council found another place for 
him — the St. Jacob's Hospital Church. This Church did 
not belong to the Catholic Church, but to a hospital, and 
was the property of the city. It could, therefore, be used. 
To it Olevianus went on the following Sunday, August 
20, accompanied by a crowd of Evangelical citizens. 

Up to this time only the city council had taken action, 
but now another power steps in, for Treves had a double 
government. It was governed by its own city council 
and also by the Elector, who had an electoral council. 
The city council looked after the temporal affairs, the 
electoral after the religious. The Elector and his authori- 
ties now began taking a hand. He was away from Treves 
when Olevianus began preaching, attending the diet of 
the German Empire at Augsburg. He had left behind 
him a governor, who acted in his place, and together with 
his electoral council tried to hinder the Protestant move- 
ment. They also acquainted him with what was taking 
place in the city. So on Monday, August 21, after the 
first service in St. Jacob's Church, five members of the 
electoral council appeared before the city council and 
asked by whose authority this new religion of Olevianus 
had been permitted in the city. Peter Steuss that day 
presented a paper to the council, which reminded them 
that the last diet had permitted the free exercise of the 
religion of the Augsburg Confession, on the basis of the 
freedom granted by the Augsburg Peace of 1555. 

The electoral councilors again came before the city 
council on August 22 and Olevianus was called before 
them. This was his second speech to them. He de- 



2o8 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



clared that God's honor had led him to preach — that noth- 
ing was more needed for Germany than the Word of 
God. He declared that he had taught in Latin, but as 
his hearers were few and for this he had been ridiculed 
by the priests, he had begun to use the German in his 
religious teaching. No one had given him advice to 
preach, but he declared he was willing to obey the 
Elector's command. On Thursday, August 24, the 
electoral council considered how Protestant preaching 
might be suppressed in Treves. They determined that 
the first step was to get some of the Protestant sheriffs 
out of the city council; and so they call before them, 
August 25, all the sheriffs in that council as those who 
held this office had been appointed to it by their master, 
the Elector of Treves. Three of them — Sirck, Seel and 
Pisport — were Protestant. Only Seel and Pisport came. 
The president of the electoral council, as governor, 
charged them with violating their oath to the Elector by 
being friendly to Protestantism. They denied this. When 
a number of the sheriffs declared that they remained Cath- 
olics, Seel boldly declared that he was an adherent of the 
Augsburg Confession. Pisport did not declare that he 
was a Protestant (the truth was that he had gone to 
Olevianus' first service out of curiosity, but had been im- 
pressed, and afterwards, as we shall see, became a staunch 
Protestant). He said he believed in God Almighty and 
Jesus Christ. He had heard Olevianus preach, but had 
none the less attended the Catholic service at the cathe- 
dral. He was ready to hear anybody, even if he were 
a juggler. The president then suspended Seel and Pis- 
port. Seel replied that if the suspension were legal, he 
must say that he placed the salvation of his soul above 
all worldly matters. But he questioned the right of the 
president to suspend him, and protested against it. The 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



209 



Elector had appointed him, and he, alone, could suspend 
him. He declared that, therefore, he would not stay out 
of the city council. Pisport took his suspension some- 
what humorously, saying that he would play a game of 
draughts with the governor and drink a glass of beer 
with him, and then the war would result in reconciliation. 
He little knew the ferocity of Catholic vengeance on those 
who left their faith, as he found it out afterwards. It 
proved to be a tragic and not a humorous incident. The 
president then also suspended Sirck, though absent, be- 
cause he had declared, in writing, that he adhered to the 
Augsburg Confession. 

The electoral council, having failed to get the city 
council to act, now went directly to the citizens and in- 
vited the guilds to a friendly conference. This failed 
because it was contrary to custom for the electoral council 
to do such a thing, as it belonged to the city council. So 
the electoral council appeared before the city council, 
August 24, and asked them to forbid Olevianus to 
preach. So Olevianus was ordered to appear before the 
city council again, and there the electoral council forbade 
him to preach any more under danger of severe penalties. 
They worried him at the hearing with trying to get him 
to tell which one of the guilds had asked him to preach, 
but he replied that he had not received authority from 
any of the authorities to preach in German, but had been 
called to it by the people. And he appealed in defense to 
the act of the German diet, granting the right of worship 
to the adherents of the Augsburg Confession. 

Olevianus preached again on Sunday, August 27, 
and on the 28th the president of the electoral council 
again declared to the city council that it was desirable to 
ask the city council to arrest Olevianus and keep him 
in custody until the Elector's return. That council also 

14 



210 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



declared that they would not meet with the city council 
as long as they allowed the three Protestant sheriffs, 
Sirck, Seel and Pisport, to sit as members of their body. 

On Monday, August 28, Sirck, Seel and Pisport 
appeared before the electoral council to ask whether the 
president of that body had the right to suspend them 
without the Elector's special order. The president re- 
plied by asking Sirck whether any one had the right to 
appoint preachers without the Elector's order, as Sirck 
had done in the case of Olevianus. He asked Sirck 
whether all this did not encourage riot and disorder. 
Sirck then declared that he would not again appear before 
the electoral council until the Elector's return. They also 
asked on what ground that council declared that the ac- 
tion of the German diet, giving liberty of worship to the 
Lutherans, did not apply to them in Treves. In the dis- 
cussion at the electoral council that day its president de- 
clared that Olevianus had preached the day before in 
spite of the decision of the council forbidding it. And he 
brought up a new point, which became very important in 
the later history of the controversy — namely, that Ole- 
vianus was not an adherent of the Augsburg Confession, 
but was a Calvinist. This charge he might make, for 
Olevianus had been a student of Calvin. It also brought 
up the new legal point, whether the Augsburg Confession 
was large enough in its meaning to include the Calvinists 
and protect their worship in Germany. The Zwinglians 
were not protected by it. But now a new doctrine, the 
Calvinistic, a higher doctrine of the Lord's Supper than 
the Zwinglianism, half way between Zwinglianism and 
Calvinism, had come up, and the legal question now was 
whether the peace of Augsburg, which allowed the use of 
the Augsburg Confession, was large enough to include 
the Calvinists and protect them in Germany. This ques- 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



211 



tion was not fully and definitely decided until about 
ninety years later, at the end of the thirty years' war 
(1648), although the German diet of 1566, in permitting 
the Heidelberg catechism in Germany, gave the Reformed 
toleration, but not recognition. Before 1648 they existed 
de facto, but not de jure. 

Sirck replied to the electoral council that Olevianus 
was not a sectarian, meaning a Zwinglian, and that 
they did him injustice. The president then weakened and 
evaded the issue by saying that he was no theologian 
and did not understand the matter, at which Sirck re- 
plied that then he had no right to make the charge. 

Meanwhile Protestantism grew apace through the 
preaching of Olevianus, for he preached on weekdays in 
spite of the prohibition. His adherents grew daily, so 
that the Catholic Chronicler said (August 20) that no 
one came to the Catholic confessional, the canons of the 
Catholics were despised, and Olevianus was master of 
the city. Truly, Olevianus had lit a spark that had pro- 
duced a great conflagration, and all in only ten days time. 
Either the people were ripe for Protestantism or he was 
a great preacher, especially for a young theologue. Both 
were probably true. 

On that day (August 29) the electoral council came 
to the city hall to meet with the city council, and also 
with the guilds. The electoral council, seeing Sirck, Seel 
and Pisport seated among the members of the city council, 
protested against it. The city council replied that they 
still had their sheriff's letters of appointment, together 
with the seal of the Elector. Burgomaster Steuss de- 
clared that the president of the electoral council had no 
right to suspend them. Then Hompheus, a member of 
the electoral council, brought forward a second charge 
against Olevianus' preaching. He declared that privilege 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



of worship according to the Augsburg Confession, was 
only given to the free cities of the empire, but Treves 
was not a free city, but an imperial city, which meant that 
it was under the direct control of its prince, one of the 
Electors of the empire. (We may pause to note here, 
that they tried to prohibit Protestant preaching for two 
reasons : First, because Olevianus was a Calvinist ; and 
second, because Treves, as an imperial city, was not under 
the law which permitted Lutheranism in it.) Hompheus 
warned the guilds against the evil of leaving their old 
religion, and asked them to declare to the council which 
religion they adhered to. It was evident, after this new 
point had been raised, that the Catholics would fight 
Protestant preaching legally to the bitter end. And it 
also revealed that further attendance on Olevianus' 
preaching would only bring serious dangers on the citi- 
zens. The issue was now clearly raised; but Olevianus, 
though the majority of the citizens remained Catholic, 
yet found his Protestant minority daily increasing, and 
so devotedly steadfast that, like Paul, he declared he 
must obey God rather than man. But he also declared that 
his opponents knew that he in no way attacked their per- 
sons, but only their doctrines. 

And now we can see more fully his heroism, for every 
time he preached it was with a sword of Damocles hang- 
ing over his head. The majority of the council desired 
Steuss, as burgomaster, to forbid Olevianus to preach. 
This Steuss refused to do, replying: "It must go on, 
whether it be hurtful to the Catholic councilors or not." 
As a result of this there were stormy times in the city 
council and the guilds. Sirck went with Olevianus to 
four of the guild-houses, where Sirck addressed them, 
and Olevianus admonished them out of the Bible, not to 
condemn him unheard, and invited them to come and 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



213 



hear him. Sirck did everything in his power, sending 
a letter to some of the guilds so as to strengthen their 
members who might be beginning to weaken. 

The leaders of the Protestants also at the end of 
August or the beginning of September called all those 
who wished to be recognized as adherents of the Augs- 
burg Confession to the Draper's House. There they 
asked them whether they wished to be recognized as 
members of the Augsburg Confession, and took their 
names. The whole assembly declared they would be true 
to that Confession with their goods and their blood (gut 
und blut), and they praised Burgomaster Steuss for his 
course. (The electoral council, which, as we have seen, 
was the centre of Catholicism in Treves, looked on this 
meeting as a conspiracy against the Elector.) These 
Protestant citizens also declared that they were ready to 
raise funds for the support of a pastor; yes, they were 
ready to call a second Protestant minister. And a strange 
Protestant minister, whose name is not given, who was 
probably from Beldenz, preached for them on Sep- 
tember 3. 

On September 5 the city council and the guild- 
masters appeared before the electoral council to state the 
action of the guilds. The weavers, all except one, de- 
clared for the Augsburg Confession, the dyers and shoe- 
makers desired to be adherents of the Augsburg Con- 
fession and declared that the majority wanted Olevianus 
to preach. The tailors also decided thus, all except five or 
six. So also the smiths, except five or six. Among the 
latter was a goldsmith, but the other goldsmiths (of 
whom there was a considerable number) declared for the 
Augsburg Confession. The masons wanted to remain 
Catholic, except eight or nine, but did not wish to vote 
on either side as to Olevianus' preaching. The other 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



guilds desired to remain Catholic; but all of them, with 
the exception of the sailors, revealed a larger or smaller 
minority in favor of the Augsburg Confession. Evi- 
dently, comparing these statistics with the vote of the 
guilds when Olevianus came, the Protestants had con- 
siderably progressed, for now five guilds declared for the 
Augsburg Confession against only three before, and in all 
of the others, save one, there was a respectable Prot- 
estant minority. Of the citizens who were not in the 
guilds, the barbers and cooks declared for Catholicism, 
as did the brotherhood and the vintners, except two or 
three. On the whole, it was evident that one-third of 
the citizens had declared for the Augsburg Confession. 
What wonderful progress had been made within a month 
under Olevianus' preaching. 

II. THE FIRST ENTRANCE OF THE ELECTOR OF TREVES 

The second chapter of this history begins with the 
return of the Elector of Treves, which caused a new 
factor to enter in, and one against the Protestants. While 
the events just mentioned had been taking place, the 
Elector, alarmed at the progress of Protestantism in his 
city, returned. He had already sent to the chapter of 
the cathedral at Treves a demand for the arrest of Ole- 
vianus, and they had laid it before the city council Sep- 
tember 6, but Burgomaster Steuss protected Olevianus 
and asked for time to make reply. The city council, on 
September 7, notified the electoral council that Ole- 
vianus had given his oath that he would not leave the 
city, and that he would appear before court, and they 
hoped that this would be satisfactory to the electoral 
court. But the latter repeated its request for his arrest. 

By this time it was evident that the adherents of 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



215 



Olevianus had increased to 500 or 600 persons, not in- 
cluding women, children and servants. The St. Jacob's 
Church had become far too small for his audiences. Mat- 
ters had gone so far that the Catholic members of the 
city council, for the sake of peace, felt it best that free 
exercise of worship according to the Augsburg Con- 
fession be given the Protestants. So Burgomaster 
Steuss, on September 9, with his fellow-Protestants, 
sent a communication to the Elector, stating their case, 
for the Elector was expected every hour. 

On September 11, the guilds again made a report. 
The furriers, grocers and tailors made no report, as their 
guild-masters were not present. All the other guilds 
voted against the arrest of Olevianus. Of these the 
weavers were the most important, and they not only 
voted against Olevianus' arrest, but they also asked of 
the Elector, that a larger church and more Protestant 
ministers be granted to them. So the city council de- 
cided that each religion, Catholic and Lutheran, should 
be permitted to have its worship, and that Olevianus 
should not be arrested. 

On that day the Protestants sent to Zweibriicken for 
another minister, and Flinsbach was sent to them by the 
Duke of Zweibriicken. He arrived on September 23. 
Meanwhile the situation changed very much and Ole- 
vianus and Flinsbach found it difficult to meet the grow- 
ing opposition from the Catholics, which was greatly 
aided by the return of the Elector. 

The first to act was the electoral council, who, find- 
ing that they could not get the city council to arrest 
Olevianus and stop the Protestant preaching, now took 
the matter into their own hands. On September 14, 
the great Catholic festival of the Elevation of the Cross, 
the electoral council called Olevianus before them after 



216 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



his morning service in the St. Jacob's Church. The presi- 
dent of the council now officially forbade him to preach. 
Olevianus replied that he would think it over. 

On that very day there came a great crowd of people 
to the afternoon worship. Olevianus went up into the 
pulpit, and before he began the service he told them that 
the electoral council had forbidden his preaching under 
severe penalties. He added these noble words : "You 
remember that three of your guilds, with others, asked 
me to preach the eternal truth of God, as I have made 
known to his majesty, the Elector. If you have repented 
of this I will not preach. But if you remain steadfast 
to this call and remain firm in the truth, I will also place 
my life and blood in danger, in order to preach the Word 
of God and to obey God rather than man. Those who, 
from the heart, agree to this shall say, Amen." The 
whole congregation then, with loud voices, cried out 
"Amen." When he afterward made the public prayer 
the people broke out into loud weeping. These actions 
.in the Church were then made known to the electoral 
council, who considered this to be rebellion. Another 
account of this service, given to the city council, adds that 
when Olevianus admonished the people not to desert 
him, if the priests tried to lay hands on him, that they 
replied that they would stand by him with their goods 
and their blood (gut und blut) — that is, to the end. 
Thus the two councils were at odds. The city council 
had given him permission to preach, and the electoral 
council forbade it. The jealousy between the two pre- 
vented the order of the latter from being carried out. 

Just at this critical time the Elector came back to the 
city, and he came back with the fixed purpose to stamp 
out Protestantism, that the holy city of Treves should 
not have its reputation besmirched by heresy. He pre- 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



217 



pared himself by arming his followers, and on Sep- 
tember 16 came to the castle, about three miles from 
Treves, named Pfalzel, from which he expected to make 
his entry into Treves. He had with him 170 armed 
cavalry. But his coming with soldiers alarmed the citi- 
zens, even the Catholics, who feared for their liberties. 
A rumor spread abroad in the city that he was coming 
with soldiers, that the Elector of Mayence had sent 
him 60 cavalry, and the Elector of Cologne would send 
him 100. And one of his councilors in Treves left the 
word drop, that things were going to go as the Elector 
wanted. The excitement that reigned within the city can 
be imagined. Already, on September 13, the city coun- 
cil decided to garrison the Simeon's gate, the one nearest 
Pfalzel. (This act was later charged by the electoral 
council as an act of the Protestants, and that they had 
done it without the knowledge of the council.) The Prot- 
estants, alarmed at the Elector's approach with soldiers, 
armed themselves. This led the Catholics to arms. The 
feeling rose so high that it almost came to a conflict. In- 
deed, a Protestant goldsmith was wounded and lamed by 
a Catholic grocer. To prevent further strife, Burgo- 
master Steuss, on September 16, had the chains placed 
across the streets. 

On that day (September 16) the Elector made his 
entrance into the city. On the morning of that day 
Burgomaster Steuss reminded the council that they ought 
to be united in protecting the rights of the city, and that 
the Evangelicals were prepared to answer the Elector 
about the Augsburg Confession, in a way that would not 
harm the city. While they were in the midst of the dis- 
cussion of this, a citizen falsely brought the news that the 
Elector was coming and was at the city gate. So they sent 
a committee to meet him, who found him still at Pfalzel. 



2i8 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



His deputy promised that he, if allowed to enter, would 
respect the rights of the city. When the committee asked 
what the Elector proposed to do in regard to the ad- 
herents of the Augsburg Confession, his representative 
replied that he would do nothing against the right or 
peace of the empire. Before the committee could return 
to make a full report, word came that the Elector, with a 
great crowd, had left Pfalzel and had come to the 
Simeon's gate of the city. The city councilors, who had 
remained in the city, gave commandment to close the bars 
of the gate against him. When they learned what 
promises he had given they sent a delegate to speak per- 
sonally with the Elector. And Burgomaster Steuss asked 
him what he would do with the Lutherans in the city — 
that they desired that no force should be used against 
them. The Elector parried this by saying: "The Em- 
peror was their and his Lord," and Steuss declared him- 
self satisfied. So the gate was opened and the Elector 
entered. 

The bitterness between Protestants and Catholics was 
increased by an incident that occurred on Sunday (Sep- 
tember 17), the day after the Elector's entrance. The 
Elector had brought with him a priest, Peter Fae, from 
Boppard on the river Rhine. Because the Protestants 
wanted preaching he would give it to them. So he sent 
Fae to preach to them, or at least hinder their Protestant 
service as much as possible if Olevianus attempted to 
preach. The priest, therefore, attended by a body-guard 
of Catholics, proceeded to the St. Jacob's Church at 7 
o'clock Sunday morning. He was, however, careful to 
hide his priest's robes under his mantle. When he 
entered the Church he found that Olevianus had not yet 
arrived, though quite a numerous congregation had as- 
sembled. He at once ascended the pulpit and was about 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



219 



beginning to preach when Olevianus, with his body- 
guard, entered the Church. Astonished at seeing a 
stranger in his pulpit, Olevianus called out to the people : 
"What does this mean? Is he to preach or I?" Then 
he asked Fae from whom he had received orders to 
preach. Fae replied that his Lord, the Elector, had given 
them. Then Olevianus turned to the people and asked : 
"Do you want this man to preach?" At this there arose 
a great noise and tumult. The women cried murder and 
the men seized their weapons, at the same time taking up 
the benches and chairs. It looked like a riot against the 
priest. At these demonstrations Fae deemed it wise to 
come down out of the pulpit. When Olevianus and 
others came up to him, Fae asked if he was Olevianus. 
When Olevianus replied, "Yes," Fae said to him : "Do 
you mean to prevent me by force from preaching the 
gospel when commanded to do so by my prince?" Ole- 
vianus replied : "I will not restrain you, but will ask the 
people whom they desire to hear." Fae, however, did 
not want him to do this. All he wanted was that Ole- 
vianus should quiet the people, for Fae was alarmed at 
the threatening situation. 

So Olevianus ascended the pulpit and asked the people 
to hear Fae, and he promised that if Fae preached any- 
thing that was false he would answer it in his sermon. 
But the people by this time were not in a mood to hear 
Fae. They would not be quieted. Fae declares that by 
this time daggers and other weapons were drawn, threat- 
ening him. Some prominent person, he said, called out 
that the bell should be rung. When he saw the men 
grasping their guns, he began to fear and called to the 
leader of his body-guard to go with him out of the 
Church, so that no evil might come to him. At this Ole- 
vianus encouraged him and took him by his hand, keep- 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



ing the people from harming him, and led him safely out 
of the Church. Outside of the Church there happened 
to be standing the brothers Steuss and Sirck. Burgo- 
master Steuss asked Fae : "Did you come to cause a riot 
here? Is that what your Lord promised us?" Fae re- 
plied that not he but they had caused the tumult, and that 
the Elector would keep his promises. After Fae's depart- 
ure, Olevianus ascended the pulpit and again put the 
question whether the people wanted him to preach to 
them as before. They, with uplifted hands and loud 
voices, cried out: "Yes, yes. We pray you in God's 
name to proceed." So Olevianus preached to them again 
that day. The city council, when they heard what had 
happened at the St. Jacob's Church, sent a deputation 
to the Elector, stating that it had happened without their 
will, and apologized for such treatment of his messenger. 

Meanwhile the Elector held a meeting of his council 
in his palace. The dean of the cathedral wanted to have 
Olevianus arrested, and urged that the Catholic guild- 
masters be sent for. When they appeared that day the 
Elector declared that it was not his intention to tres- 
pass on the rights of the city, but he charged the Prot- 
estants with a conspiracy against the city. He, there- 
fore, to preserve the old Catholic faith, wanted them to 
allow him to place his soldiers as guards at the city gates, 
together with those of the Catholic citizens. The guild- 
masters then left to confer with their guilds. 

But his request to place his soldiers at the city gates 
seemed, even to the Catholics, to threaten a violation of 
the liberties of the city. There had, before this, been 
strife between the Elector and themselves, and they were 
suspicious that the Elector was trying to make use of the 
present emergency to get control of the city. So they 
did not agree to the Elector's request. The tense state 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



221 



of mind is shown that on the next day the chains were 
placed across the streets by the Protestants ; and on Sep- 
tember 19 the city gates did not open till 1 1 A. M. The 
Catholics in the city, seeing that something must be done, 
began negotiating with the Protestants and asked that 
Olevianus should discontinue preaching. The city coun- 
cil met on September 19th and decided to give each party 
their rights, neither was to attack the other. 

On September 20, the city secretary and syndic went 
to the Draper's Hall, in which the Protestants were ac- 
customed to assemble, and received from them the 
promise that Olevianus would not preach on the next 
day — St. Matthew's Day. The Evangelicals also again 
presented their claims to the Elector. They declared 
that they had gotten Olevianus to occupy the pulpit in 
the St. Jacob's Church, and had demanded from him the 
Protestant sacraments. They declared that they were 
Christians of the Old and the New Testaments ; that 
Olevianus preached according to the Augsburg Confes- 
sion, and asked that he be allowed to continue preaching 
and they would pay his salary. They also asked the 
council, either to hear him or to examine him so they 
might know his doctrine; yes, they even offered to have 
a public disputation with the Catholics. They declared 
that the disorder in their Church would not have taken 
place, if it had been known beforehand that a Catholic 
would be the preacher. For they were not, as had been 
charged, inclined to rebellion. 

On Sunday, September 24, the day after his arrival, 
Flinsbach preached and notified the Elector of his pres- 
ence in the city, and the next day, Monday, he was sum- 
marily called before the electoral council at the St. Gan- 
golph's Church. Notwithstanding that he declared him- 
self an adherent of the Augsburg Confession, he was 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



ordered to leave the city before sundown. He, like Ole- 
vianus, replied that "he must be obedient to God rather 
than to man." He sent a letter stating the legal status 
of the Lutherans in Germany. After the coming of 
Flinsbach, the charge of the Elector of Treves that the 
Protestants there were Calvinists was no longer true, for 
Flinsbach was a Lutheran. His coming put the Prot- 
estants formally under the protection of the Augsburg 
Peace. 

And on that day the Catholic councilors called the 
Catholic citizens together to consider the statement made 
by the Evangelicals to the Elector. They decided that 
neither should Olevianus preach or the second Protestant 
minister. They appointed committees to go to the guilds 
and get their views. All the guilds except the weavers, 
whose members belonged to the Augsburg Confession, 
agreed to this. They then notified the Elector that they 
proposed remaining true to the old Catholic religion, but 
did not agree to his garrisoning the city with his soldiers. 

The electoral council met again on September 25. 
The Elector now dubbed the Protestants' "Calvinists." Al- 
though the Protestants claimed to hold to the Augsburg 
Confession, although not a word of Olevianus could be 
found which showed he was a Calvinist, yet the Prot- 
estants were from this time looked upon as Calvinists. 
The electoral council also considered the taking of a 
criminal process against Olevianus, but they feared that 
the Protestant leaders in the city council, which would 
have to act as judges, would decide against them. On 
September 26, this council brought forward a new plan 
for settling the differences, a financial one. They would 
demand 10,000 or 12,000 guldens of the Protestants and 
the dismissal of their pastors. 

Then the Elector ordered the Protestants to appear 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



223 



at the city hall on Thursday, September 28. Steuss re- 
plied that he could not gather them together and so sent 
in a paper stating their case. But the influence of the 
Protestants was so great that the city council, on Sep- 
tember 28, sent a deputation, composed of both confes- 
sions, to the Elector, asking him to reply to the 
repeated communications of the Protestants. He then 
made a reply that they had already received a sufficient 
answer. So every effort of his to suppress Protestantism 
had failed. The Protestants were determined to remain 
true to the Augsburg Confession. Among the Catholics 
many had been intimated by the Elector. But still, little 
as they were inclined to favor the Protestants, they 
were as little inclined to favor the Elector's acts of 
severity against the Protestants. And they also feared 
lest the old freedom of the city would be lessened by 
the Elector. The Elector finally lost patience, and as 
the Catholics would not do anything against the Prot- 
estants he declared that they had become a party with 
them. So finally, unable to frighten the Protestants by 
his threats, embittered by the actions of the Catholics, 
on September 28, he summarily left the city twelve days 
after his entrance. He went to his garrison at Pfalzel. 
The next day his electoral court left the city. This de- 
parture of their bitterest enemies proved for the time a 
fortunate thing for the Protestants. 

During all the negotiations and in the midst of the 
threats against him, Olevianus had fearlessly continued 
active, both in preaching and in the pastorate. Over 
against the Elector's orders he pled God's command. 
"We must obey God rather than man" was his motto. 
And he had the joy of gathering around himself a con- 
gregation that literally hung on his lips. Burgomaster 
Steuss wrote, on September 9, to Elector Frederick III 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



of the Palatinate, that 500 to 600 of the citizens had 
become Protestant, and, on September 27, that the num- 
ber was constantly increasing. The truth was that this 
23-year-old preacher had, by the power of God's Spirit, 
converted hundreds of souls in less than two months. 
The loud weeping of the congregation, when they heard 
that Olevianus dared no longer preach to them, only 
showed their deep attachment to him. This attachment 
to him increased, as the report spread abroad after the 
entrance of the Elector, that notwithstanding the refusal 
of city council to arrest him, he would yet be taken by 
force. The report went abroad that when the grocers, 
coopers and sailors had come to the St. Jacob's Church 
and surrounded it, then the Elector's cavalry could come 
and capture him and the other attendants on Protestant 
worship. Olevianus' mother heard these rumors. She 
was told that some young men out of the Catholic re- 
ligious houses had come to an understanding that they 
would climb into her house at night in order to seize her 
son. In her motherly anxiety she told this to some of 
the congregation. And they promised to look after his 
safety. From that time on some of the Protestants always 
went with Olevianus, as a body-guard, when he went to 
the Church, as they did also with Flinsbach. The Prot- 
testants also watched at Olevianus' house by night. Later 
they gave the watcher and piper in the Gangolph's tower 
a paper flag, with the request to hand it out if there were 
danger. This they did to save a panic and to get the 
women and children away in case of danger. The stead- 
fastness of the Protestants is shown by a remark of the 
sheriff Pisport. He said : "Our Protestant Confession 
must go forward, even if it be a cross." Again and again 
the Protestants declared that they would give up prop- 
erty and life if necessary for their faith. When either 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



225 



of the ministers preached the Church was always very 
full. Even the chancel and windows were full of people. 

III. THE SECOND ENTRANCE OF THE ELECTOR OF TREVES 

We now come to the third and last stage of this his- 
tory. The Elector from Pfalzel plotted to gain control 
of the city by oppressions from without and plottings 
with the Catholics within the city. On October 2, he 
sent word to the city asking that the new Protestant 
preacher should be arrested and cast into prison. As it 
was not done he began the more to oppress the city from 
the outside. And it soon had its effect on the citizens. 
On October 3, he sent to the city council two com- 
munications, one denying that the Augsburg Confession 
was to be permitted in Treves, and the other charging 
John Steuss with being a law-breaker because he 
permitted a layman to preach. He asked that their 
preachers be arrested until brought to trial as criminals. 
He gave the council three days in which to give him an 
answer. When this was received by the city council it 
at once led to a sharp division between the Catholics and 
the Protestants. But at this division the Catholic party, 
who had not been able to do anything before because its 
head Burgomaster Steuss was a Protestant, now found 
a head and leader in the second Burgomaster Ohren. 

The Elector then proceeded to carry on a peaceable 
seige of the town. Thus he did not permit the farmers 
to bring provisions into the town. Its citizens, who came 
out of it, were caught and sometimes abused, then 
brought to Pfalzel, and under oath questioned as to what 
they knew about the actions of the Protestants in the city. 
After a few days they would be set free. He held up the 
city's market ship on the river Moselle that came from 

15 



226 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



Frankfort, at Berncastle, so it could not get to the town. 
The fields and gardens of the citizens were laid waste by 
his men. At the same time he increased the number of 
his soldiers and retainers. The city was thus completely 
cut off from outside communications. 

All this had its effect on the Catholics within the city. 
They felt something must be done to propitiate the 
Elector, so on October 4 the secretary of the city coun- 
cil, Dronkman, with several other appointees, went to 
Steuss and asked him to give up his Protestant worship 
in order to gain the good will of the Elector. The Prot- 
estants replied that they would be willing to suspend the 
preaching as soon as their two delegates sent to Spires 
would return. These had been sent by them so as to gain 
information about the legal rights of the Lutherans in 
Germany. These delegates were also to go to Zwei- 
briicken to get Flinsbach's order, by which Zweibriicken 
sent him to Treves. This they did to show the Catholics 
that he was there at the order of Zweibriicken and that 
if the Elector did anything to Flinsbach it might involve 
him in complications with the Duke of Zweibriicken. It 
also showed that the Protestants were somewhat under 
the protection of that prince. Meanwhile, the citizens 
suffered more and more from want of food. 

On October 5, the Catholics and some Protestants 
went to the city hall, when the answer of the Protestants 
was read, and the guild halls took it up in their various 
guild houses. The Catholics, on the basis of the reports 
from the guild halls, demanded that the Protestant preach- 
ing should cease and that the ministers be arrested, and 
that all of them must go to the city hall before sundown, 
where they would be protected. On that day the Prot- 
estants repeated their promise not to hold services. On 
October 6, because of greater pressure from the Cath- 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



227 



olics, they agreed not to have religious services until the 
Elector permitted or the matter was settled in court, and 
also that they would not leave the city until they had 
given answer to the Elector. On October 6, the end 
of the three days given them by the Elector to answer 
his communication, a committee of nine Catholic coun- 
cilors, with Burgomaster Ohren at their head, went to 
Pfalzel to tell the Elector what had been done and to 
pray his mercy and favor. 

On the same day the Protestants were called before 
the city council and asked to sign a paper that they would 
have their preaching cease until the Elector gave per- 
mission, and that they would not leave Treves until they 
had given answer to the Elector. Steuss and the other 
leaders of the Protestants agreed. Meanwhile, the ex- 
citement within the city was increased by the Elector. 
Every new arrest of a citizen or new act of severity out- 
side of the city only increased the bitterness of the Cath- 
olics against the Protestants, whom they regarded as the 
cause of all their trouble. Both parties armed them- 
selves, and, on October 5, remained armed till 2 o'clock. 
The Catholics did not do anything, as they seem to have 
felt themselves the weaker in power. 

By October 7, the oppressions of the Elector from 
outside, and his plottings with the Catholics within the 
city had stirred up such a bitter feeling between Cath- 
olics and Protestants that the latter were under arms 
from morning till evening, as they feared betrayal. On 
October 8th a new message came from the Elector mak- 
ing the offer that because of the faithfulness of the Cath- 
olic citizens the Protestants would be allowed to leave 
if they would pay 20,000 dollars. If not, they would be 
charged with capital crimes. And criminal prosecution in 
those days was a more serious thing than even to-day, 



228 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



for their punishments were much more severe. For com- 
paratively light offenses men were beheaded or hung. 
The two criminal charges against Olevianus and the 
Protestants were heresy and conspiracy,* both of which 
were punishable with death. We thus see the gravity of 
the situation of Olevianus and his friends, especially in 
the hands of a hostile court. 

On October 10, the Elector cut off the water of the 
stream that flowed through Treves, thus preventing their 
mills from having water and their men from working. 
More and more the Catholics blamed the Protestants for 
all this, and the more moderate Catholics more and more 
went over to the more fanatical. The declaration of the 
electoral council, that for all the damages the city had 
suffered, the Protestants would have to pay, roused the 
greediness of those without property. The populace 
filled the beer-gardens, as they had nothing to do, and 
said: "drink much, for the Lutherans will have to pay 
the bill." The feeling between Protestants and Catholics 
became so acute that both sides began arming. The 
rumor spread abroad that the Protestants intended to be- 
tray the city, and that they had sent delegates to get 
military help from the Protestant nobles. Thus, their 
sending of the delegates to Spires and Zweibriicken, of 
which we have spoken, was misinterpreted and used 
against them. On that day the little paper flag, which 
the Protestants had placed on the Gangolph's tower as 
a signal against danger, was found by the Catholics and 
used as a proof that they intended to betray the city. 
Thus, every act of theirs was perverted to stir up the 
Catholics against them. Flinsbach wrote (October 10) 
that matters were continually becoming worse. Outside 

* Goebel says they were charged with riot, treason and arson 
and attempt at killing. 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



229 



the city there was plundering, within, the citizens were 
divided. He prayed for help. 

On October 11, the Elector gained the victory also 
with the moderate Catholics, for the Catholic members 
of the city council met and decided that on the following 
morning each of the guilds should meet and consider the 
situation. The increased embittering of the Catholic citi- 
zens against the Protestants made it easy to see the result. 

Finally, on this day, the Catholic city council de- 
cided to do what the Elector had long wanted them to 
do, but they had refused. They decided to arrest the 
two Protestant preachers and the Protestant members of 
their council. They, however, mitigated it into an order 
that these should come to this city hall and remain there 
until permitted to leave. Only Burgomaster Steuss could 
remain in his house, but was under house-arrest, and he 
did not, therefore, dare to leave it. They also ordered 
the head of the weaver's guild, Ulrich of Aichorn, and 
the head of the tailors' guild, John of Neuerberg, to come 
to the city hall. The Protestants felt that all this was 
a violation of their rights, yet they obeyed, as they wished 
to show they were not conspirators, but law-abiding citi- 
zens. But before they did it they filed a protest with a 
notary. By sundown they were all, the two ministers and 
eight others, in the city hall, under virtual arrest, but not 
put into prison. 

These Protestant leaders sent a paper (October 12) 
to the city council, asking that there be a meeting of the 
citizens, so as to protect the liberties of the city so that 
they might all stand together against the Elector. The 
city council received this, but ordered Steuss to give up 
the key to the council chamber, as he was no longer recog- 
nized as burgomaster. The city council then notified the 
Elector of what they had done, hoping he would now lift 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



the siege. With their deputation to the Elector were 
sent several Protestants, who also took the Duke of Zwei- 
briicken's order to Flinsbach, in order to show it to the 
Elector. The Elector refused to recognize these Prot- 
estants and arrested them and kept them in prison for 
eleven days; and one of them, Zehnder, the city syndic, 
who was the lawyer of the Protestants, he kept there for 
months. 

Then the Protestants began appealing for aid to the 
neighboring Protestant princes, Zweibriicken, the Palatin- 
ate, and even Wurtemberg. The Elector, hearing of this, 
tightened his seige on the town. One of their messengers 
was caught as he returned to the city, and kept in the 
cold prison in Simeon's tower. In vain, the Duke of 
Zweibriicken interceded for him, for he was one of his 
servants; but only after twenty-two days was he left 
out and permitted to go to his house, and was not freed 
till December 15. The Elector now approached the 
city council about opening the city gates to him. About 
that time (October 16) the Protestant prisoners had 
their liberties curtailed. Before this they had been al- 
lowed freedom within the city hall, and their food was 
sent in to them by a leading Protestant. But now the 
latter was cut off from them. Flinsbach wrote (October 
19) to his prince, giving a deplorable condition of the 
city, as it was without food or water, that neither party 
had confidence in the other, and that both lived in con- 
stant fear. 

Meanwhile, the Elector, from without the city, con- 
tinued his negotiations with the Catholic city council, 
but the latter hesitated to let him come in, lest he might, 
with his soldiers, jeopardize the liberties of the city. 
During this time the Catholics within the city labored 
with the weak Protestants, so as to get them back to 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



231 



Catholicism. As a result the Catholics told the Elector, 
on October 18, that the greater part of the Protestants 
had come back to Catholicism. This was, however, an 
exaggeration ; but of the guilds, only the weaver's guild, 
as a guild, remained true to Protestantism. 

Finally, on October 26, about a month after he had 
left, the Elector made his second entry into the city, the 
city council having agreed to all his conditions. He 
entered with 200 cavalry, a company of 600 armed serv- 
ants and a following of 50 religious and secular adherents. 
These soldiers and servants he quartered not on the Cath- 
olics, but on the Protestants who bore it with great suffer- 
ing. The one to suffer most severely was Olevianus' 
mother, who had ten quartered on her at house in the 
Fleishgasse. This quartering of the soldiers on the Prot- 
estants caused the weak-hearted Protestants to give up 
because it. was so exhausting to them, but a Zweibriicken 
correspondent wrote that 500 remained firm. 

The first act of the Elector was to get rid of Flins- 
bach. On October 28 he was brought to the palace 
charged with heresy, incitement to riot and disobedience. 
There he defended his acts. The Elector's councilors 
were careful to ask him what religion Olevianus belonged 
to. They hoped in that way he might let something drop 
that would show that Olevianus was a Calvinist, so that 
this might be used against Olevianus afterward in his 
trial. They were evidently getting ready for a severe 
punishment on Olevianus, upon whom they looked as the 
main cause of all the trouble. But Flinsbach gave them 
no aid. He was freed on October 31, and two days 
later, accompanied by two of their cavalry, he arrived 
at Zweibriicken. 

Meanwhile, the Elector also still further curtailed 
the liberties of the Protestant prisoners. On October 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



27 they were not allowed to walk about in the city hall, 
but must remain in their rooms. 

In the meanwhile the Elector and the council were 
laying plans to bring criminal charges against the 
prisoners. The real cause of the matter — namely, their 
adherence to the Augsburg Confession — the Catholics did 
not wish to bring forward prominently, as it might in- 
volve them with the Lutheran princes, who might bring 
them before the bar of the empire. So some other charge 
must be trumped up. They, therefore, sought to find ma- 
terial for a charge against Olevianus that he was a Calvin- 
ist, and, therefore, he and his followers could not be pro- 
tected by the law that granted liberty to Lutherans. As 
Flinsbach had not incriminated Olevianus in his exami- 
nation, they had Olevianus' books searched, so as to find 
proof that he was a Calvinist. But it was in vain. 

It only remained for the Elector to indict them as 
rebels, but this had weak grounds for defense. Still the 
Catholics made this the charge against them, and in three 
forms — sedition, rebellion and breach of the religious 
peace. These charges were brought against Burgomaster 
Steuss, the sheriffs, Peter Sirck, Otto Seel and John 
Pisport, against councilors Peter Steuss, Ulrich of 
Aichorn, John Steub, John of Neuerberg, Dr. Casper 
Olevianus and four others, thirteen in all. It was charged 
that these, instead of taking to the Augsburg Confession, 
had joined themselves to a schismatic fanatic, Olevianus. 
These had, against the order of the rector of the uni- 
versity and council, allowed Olevianus to preach first 
in the school and then in St. Jacob's Church, all of which 
was against the order of the Elector. They had conspired 
against the Elector, abused his priest when sent to St. 
Jacob's Church to preach, and had armed themselves. 
The flag of the Gangolph's tower was brought in as evi- 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



233 



dence against them as a signal to their friends outside. 
Their actions had compelled the Catholics to arm, etc. 
The Catholic council added that the Protestants had been 
in communication with foreign princes and they (the 
Catholics) had suffered losses amounting to 20,000 dol- 
lars. They asked that the Protestants be compelled to 
leave the city. 

On November 14 the Protestants were notified that 
the Elector had finally decided to settle matters if they 
would pay these costs and leave the city, otherwise they 
must suffer as criminals. He demanded their answer that 
day. But all the Protestant prisoners refused to consider 
these terms. In their discussion Seel said that this was 
treating them as the Jews were treated, by a tax levy. 
Peter Steuss declared that before he would give anything 
they might take his life. Olevianus declared that he 
could not give anything, as he had nothing, and that 
what he has done had been done for the good of the 
people. He would not give up the Word of God or 
preach what was not in agreement with it. Thus the 
Protestants increased the danger of suffering for the se- 
rious crimes charged against them by their refusal of the 
terms. Nothing now remained but to try them. 

So on November 15 the Elector formally brought 
criminal charges against them, and they were brought 
out for trial. The 600 armed servants of the Elector 
were stationed in the market. Fifty-one armed citizens 
brought the Protestant prisoners from the city hall to the 
court house, before which the 600 followers of the Elector 
remained. The charges against them were read. They 
denied them and handed in a paper in which they de- 
clared that they wanted to defend themselves. They re- 
peated their request to be allowed to leave the city, but 
declared that they would not pay any money, as that 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



would be giving tribute such as was demanded of the 
Jews. They were willing for amicable negotiations, but 
to a jurisdiction like this, forced up on them, they were 
not favorable. 

During the trial, when Olevianus' right to preach was 
denied because he was unordained, he declared: "If I 
do not happen to have permission from the Roman magis- 
trates or Parisian sophists, I have, nevertheless, received 
it from God. From him I have received the command to 
employ the talents entrusted to me. The rector of the 
university did not forbid me, as has been charged, but 
he said : 'Preach the Bible for the priests need it." And 
the city council did not forbid me to teach theology in 
Latin. I know that nothing was preached contrary to 
the Word of God. Only once did I speak against a min- 
ister of the Elector, and that was because he, a Jesuit, 
had preached contrary to the Bible, and among other 
things had said that the blood of Jesus was not sufficient 
for our sins. And that priest had preached without 
permission of the city council, to whom the St. Jacob's 
Church belonged. And he had come to cause a tumult, 
for which I am charged. I deny that the Protestants 
were about to riot, for their weapons were not guns, but 
the Word of God." 

After they had been heard they were taken back from 
the court house to their prison. The next day the prison 
rules were made stricter. They were not permitted to 
be together any longer. Olevianus, with three others, 
were thrown into the prison in the city hall, and the 
others were placed in other rooms. Olevianus and Sirck 
complained that in the prison they could die because of 
the cold. So they were all put into a room in the city 
hall, called the "flour-room," where the rest were. 

While in prison Olevianus, on October 1 1, wrote 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



235 



the following letter. It comes to us like Bunyan's 
"Pilgrim's Progress," out of prison. It is written to the 
ministers of Strasburg.* 

"Grace and peace. Although we may have one foot 
in destruction, we have been unwilling to pass by this 
opportunity of writing to you what was denied to us daily 
in afflictions and chains. We desire to truly make known 
to you our condition and to pour out our hearts to your 
sympathy. This is the sum of our affairs. About half 
of the citizens, and especially of the councilors of this 
city have embraced the gospel. But God is permitting 
our adversaries to proceed with unheard-of methods, so 
that Rev. Mr. Flinsbach, a man of prudence and singular 
piety, Has been detained in custody. Neither do they 
seem to be satisfied merely with exiling the rest of us, 
but they are also trying to mulct us out of a great part of 
our possessions. Meanwhile, that they may remit some 
of their severity, the ministers of Germany and legates 
from the princes are laboring. What they may effect is 
problematical, except that we are certain that we will 
be sent into exile. We seek from you, Reverend Fathers, 
that you commend us and ours to God, the Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, in your prayers, as becomes members 
of one and the same body. D. Matthaeus, who brings this 
letter, will narrate to you what is happening to us. Fare- 
well. 

"Casper Olevianus, 
"Minister of the Gospel of Christ, Written to You in the 
Name of All the Imprisoned and Faithful Citizens." 

A second hearing was given to these prisoners on 
November 29, in which they were required to answer the 
charges. As these were not given to them, and as they 
had had no attorney they were in a deplorable position. 
Their Protestant advocate, Zehnder, the Elector, as we 
have seen, had imprisoned at Pfalzel before he came into 
the city, and he refused to release him so as to defend 

*We have largely abbreviated it. 



236 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



them. They finally got an advocate from Strasburg on 
November 24, but he had only five days to prepare for 
their defense. But before these had passed, circum- 
stances occurred which gave an entirely new appearance 
to things — namely, the arrival of the ambassadors of the 
foreign Protestant princes, who had come to intercede 
for them. But for their arrival Olevianus and his friends 
would have probably suffered the full penalty for their 
crimes charged against them — namely, rebellion and 
heresy. 

For while all this was going on, the Protestants in 
other places were becoming interested in their cause. 
They began sending in appeals to the authorities of 
Treves for mercy to these prisoners. However, all was 
in vain. Even the plea of Elector Frederick III, of the 
Palatinate, great prince that he was, had no effect. He 
had sent two ambassadors to intercede with the Elector 
of Treves, who arrived October 26 at Pfalzel. They de- 
clared that the Elector had imprisoned the Protestants be- 
cause they were adherents of the Augsburg Confession. 
But the Elector of Treves replied that the reason for it 
was Olevianus' Calvinism, and also their acts of riot and 
sedition. The ambassadors replied that their master, 
Elector Frederick III, of the Palatinate, knew better 
than that. When Elector Frederick heard that they were 
threatened with a criminal process, he sent an ambassador 
asking that an impartial commission be appointed, who 
would hear the case and make a decision. But the Elector 
of Treves refused all these appeals, so Elector Frederick 
III finally determined to hold a conference of the neigh- 
boring Protestant princes. He invited the Duke of Wur- 
temberg, the two princes of Baden and three other princes 
to send representatives to the city of Worms, on Novem- 
ber 19, to consider how these persecuted Protestants in 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



237 



Treves might gain relief. (He also notified the two great 
Protestant princes of Germany, the Electors of Saxony 
and Brandenburg of what was taking place.) 

The princes sent their delegates to Worms on No- 
vember 20. They continued in session for two days. The 
legal question before them was: "Was Treves an im- 
perial city or not? If it was, then was it under the Augs- 
burg Peace of 1555, which guaranteed freedom of wor- 
ship to the Lutherans?'' They decided it would be best 
to send a deputation to Treves. From Worms they went 
to Treves, where they arrived, twenty-six in number, an 
imposing body, on November 27, and were later followed 
by seven more ambassadors. Then began the negotia- 
tions. The Elector of Treves, at first entirely refused 
to allow any mitigation of his charges against the Prot- 
testants and proved very stubborn. They pled for the 
rights of the adherents of the Augsburg Confession. His 
reply was that these Protestants were rebels. He de- 
clared that Olevianus was not protected by that, as he 
was a Calvinist. Their leader, however, called the atten- 
tion of the Elector, as he said he was treating them as 
rebels, and not in regard to the Augsburg Confession, to 
the offer he had once made to them eight days before, 
that he would cease his enmity if they would give up 
the Augsburg Confession. This proved that he himself 
confessed that his opposition to them was not for their 
rebellion, but because they were Lutherans. On Novem- 
ber 30 these ambassadors were given an audience with 
the prisoners in the city hall, where the prisoners stated 
in their own defense what they had done. On the next 
day the ambassadors again visited the prisoners. They 
declared that, as Erfurt and other episcopal cities had 
accepted the Augsburg Confession, they had the same 
right. They declared that they were willing to leave 



238 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



the city, but not to pay the costs. Further negotiations 
followed between the ambassadors, the Elector and the 
city council. On the one hand the Elector persisted in 
declaring them rebels ("a viper brood"), and that they 
must be punished as such; on the other hand, the Prot- 
estants denied this, and refused to pay the costs. 

Finally, by December 17, after much and repeated 
pressure by the ambassadors, the Elector had come down 
from 20,000 dollars to 3,000 dollars, and the Protestants 
were to leave Treves within eight days. All the Prot- 
estants agreed to this except Olevianus. He stood out, 
even though his refusal might mean death to him, for 
there was something in it to which he could not con- 
scientiously agree. At the urgent solicitation of the am- 
bassadors he finally consented to agree to a Latin form 
of it, but only if he could satisfy his conscience by being 
allowed to make a protest against the charge that he had 
despised the Elector's express prohibition of his preach- 
ing, and had confessed that he was the cause of the dis- 
orders at which the Elector felt himself greatly injured. 
The agreement seemed to him to be a denial of his doc- 
trine and position as a preacher. However, he was not 
compelled to take part in the payment of any money. 

On December 19 the prisoners were brought before 
the electoral council in the city hall, and were asked if 
they accepted the terms. To this Sirck, in the name of 
all, replied: "Yes." Only Olevianus presented his pro- 
test, as mentioned above. He declared before God that 
he had preached the gospel in its purity and according to 
the Augsburg Confession, on which Confession he de- 
clared he still stood. What there was in the agreement 
that might be interpreted against the true Christian 
religion or the Augsburg Confession he would not con- 
cede. Only on condition that he made this protest was he 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



239 



willing to accept the agreement. They then signed it when 
Olevianus, a second time, repeated his protest. They were 
then set free. We thus see the conscientiousness and 
bravery of Olevianus in spite of the danger in doing so. 

Olevianus seems to have left Treves before the rest 
on December 22, in company with the ambassadors of 
the foreign princes. The count of Erbach, the ambassa- 
dor of the Palatinate, took him with him to Heidelberg. 
It seems Elector Frederick III had not forgotten how 
this young preacher had, some years before, plunged into 
the river at Bourges, in France, to save his son from 
drowning, and had almost himself drowned in the attempt. 
At Heidelberg the Elector made him the teacher in the 
College of Wisdom, and sometime later he was made 
professor of theology in the university, and later preacher 
in the great city church at Heidelberg, the Holy Ghost 
Church, and superintendent of the Church of the Provi- 
dence of the Palatinate. Although he declared his ad- 
herence to the Augsburg Confession at Treves, yet Ole- 
vianus was at heart a Calvinist. Indeed, almost as soon 
as he got to Heidelberg, he wrote to Calvin about the 
introduction of the Calvinistic church government into 
the Palatinate. By becoming a Calvinist he did not feel 
himself out of harmony with the Augsburg Confession 
any more than did Elector Frederick III, when he pub- 
lished the Heidelberg catechism three years later, for 
both believed that the Altered Augsburg Confession — 
the Augsburg Confession of 1540 — was large enough to 
include the Reformed. In 1576, Olevianus had a repeti- 
tion of his experience at Treves, though not so severe, as 
he was again banished from Heidelberg for being Re- 
formed by Elector Lewis, who was a high Lutheran. 

The two brothers, Steuss, shook the dust of the city 
from their feet on the day before Christmas. Sirck, Pis- 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



port and Monday left on the day after Christmas, Seel, 
on December 27. Most of them went to the neighboring 
districts of Beldenz and Zweibriicken, which was Luth- 
eran. The brothers Steuss, Sirck and Seel, two months 
later, nobly paid the whole amount required — 3,000 dol- 
lars — out of their own pockets, so that the rest of the 
Protestants need not pay. 

After the departure of the leaders of the Protestants, 
the Catholics made repeated efforts to convert them 
back to the Catholic faith. In this the Elector used every 
form of persuasion. On December 23, the day after the 
foreign ambassadors had left, the council gave order that 
all who held to the Augsburg Confession must leave the 
city within fourteen days. Lenninger, with other leaders 
of the Protestants, appeared before the council, saying 
that within eight days they would leave. In all, forty-six 
persons of the different guilds declared before the coun- 
cil that they were Protestants and would leave the city. 
With their departure went all the leaders of Protestant- 
ism. But they were not all the Protestants, for on Janu- 
ary 12, of the next year, the secretary of the city council, 
Dronkman, declared there were 300 Protestants in the 
city. Every effort was used to reconvert them to Cath- 
olicism, and on Jauary 4, 1560, forty-seven went back 
to the old religion. The guilds were called up separately, 
and each member was required to become a Catholic. 
But this did not fully succeed. On January 9, ninety- 
eight returned to the Catholic faith, but on January 27 
thirty-five more Protestants left the city. 

So Treves freed herself from heresy, but she struck 
herself a death blow when she drove out the Protestants, 
for they were her leading citizens and best artizans. The 
industries of the city fell off greatly. Treves, from being 
one of the most important of the cities of Germany and 



OLEVIANUS AT TREVES 



241 



the seat of one of the great Electors of Germany, went 
back to a third-rate city and worse. She has not pro- 
gressed very much in the last 300 years. And in spite of 
all the measures against Protestantism, some of the clergy 
inclined to it in 1560, and in 1564 it was said that many 
of the citizens went out of the city for the Protestant 
Lord's Supper. Olevianus' mother still lived in the city, 
of course, as quietly as possible. But when twenty years 
later the next Elector drove out all the remaining Prot- 
estants, she had to leave, and she went to Herborn, where 
her son had started a university, and where he died. 
She survived him nine years. 

The Elector at once called in the Catholic orders, 
especially the Jesuits, to reconvert the Protestants. The 
Jesuits, in 1560, founded the Whitmonday procession, 
held every Whitmonday, in honor of the driving out of 
the Protestants under Olevianus. This festival has been 
observed ever since, although its special reference to Ole- 
vianus has been forgotten. Protestantism was kept out 
of Treves for 200 years. No Protestant was permitted to 
live there. Finally in 1784 the Elector issued an edict of 
toleration, and the French revolution came along and 
gave them religious liberty. In 1817 the first Protestant 
service was held. To-day Treves is still an exceedingly 
Catholic city. Above her on a hill towers a great statue 
of the Virgin Mary, who seems still to dominate that 
valley. But there is now a large Protestant congrega- 
tion there, and, strange to say, they worship in the old 
basilica, erected by Constantine about 1700 years ago. 



15 



ZACHARIAH URSINUS 



CHAPTER V 

URSINUS' CONVERSION TO THE REFORMED FAITH 

The new data that we have been unearthing gives 
us new light on the early life of Ursinus, especially as to 
the steps by which he became Reformed. 

It is said that man's life is determined by two causes, 
heredity and environment, by disposition and circum- 
stances. If that be so, let us examine Ursinus' life. And 
we will see how heredity and environment combined to 
make him a Reformed, even though educated a Lutheran. 

And first, there was a basis for the Reformed type in 
Ursinus' natural disposition. First, he was naturally in- 
tellectual and later a giant in intellect. That his natural 
tendency was to run out into intellectualism is shown by 
the dialectics of his later life. Now it has been the 
Reformed Church that has emphasized the intellectual, 
whereas the Lutheran has emphasized mysticism, espe- 
cially in regard to the sacraments. The Lutherans have 
often charged the Reformed with rationalism, and the 
Reformed have returned the charge by saying that the 
Lutherans inclined to superstition. We grant that the 
Reformed emphasized intellectualism, though we do not 
believe that that necessarily meant rationalism. For there 
can be rationality without rationalism. And it has been 

242 



THE CONVERSION OF URSINUS 



the peculiarity of the Reformed, that they always de- 
manded that a thing must be rational, — that is in accord 
with the demands of reason, even though they could not 
understand it. It must never contradict reason, and 
even if too profound to be understood, it must be in 
accord with the laws of reason. The Reformed always 
gave a large place to reason in their system. Now this 
being so, we can see why the Reformed method of think- 
ing and theology had an especial attraction for a mind 
like that of Ursinus. It allowed larger room for an 
intellect like his to consider every question. 

Secondly, Ursinus, strange to say, had a tendency in 
some respects to the opposite of intellectualism. He had 
a heart as well as a head. And especially in his early 
life before and at the time he wrote our catechism, he was 
strong on the experimental, even though this hardened 
later under the influence of study and his controversies. 
For it is to be remembered that he, and not Olevianus, was 
the first to strike the keynote of our catechism in experi- 
ence. He first put in the question, "What is thy comfort," 
etc., even in his first catechism. His early addresses, 
as well as his letters, reveal a heart full of emotion. Well, 
if that was the case, the Reformed Church would be the 
one most suited to him, for it has always been the church 
of experience. The Lutheran Church emphasized the 
sacramental, the Reformed the experimental. Both had 
their mystical side, but with the Lutherans the mysticism 
was of the sacraments, with the Reformed, of personal 
experience. This emphasis on experience made pietism 
germane to the Reformed Church, but was brought into 
the Lutheran Church from the outside, for Spener got it 
from Labadie at Geneva. We are indebted for this last 
thought to our dear departed friend, the late Rev. H. J. 
Ruetenik, D.D. Well, this being the case, we can see 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



how the Reformed Church would prove attractive to Ur- 
sinus and be the one he would finally enter. 

For Ursinus was a great mind. A great man is a 
varied man, generally a union of opposites, delicately 
poised and exquisitely blended. And so Ursinus was a 
union of the intellectual and experimental. Indeed, Ur- 
sinus was a remarkable union of the intellectual, emo- 
tional and ethical, each of which appear prominent in his 
make-up. Of them, however, as he grew older, the in- 
tellectual bulked largest and became the most prominent. 
But he reveals his greatness in the splendid unity of this 
threefold nature especially during his early life, during 
the period when he was becoming Reformed. No won- 
der the Reformed faith proved attractive to him. But 
we must not dwell too long on the ontological side of 
this subject. Let us turn from heredity to environment 
and see the influences that were brought to bear on him 
that landed him in the Reformed Church. 

The first of these that may be mentioned was the 
influence of his pastor, Moibanus. We have seen that 
in his catechism, Moibanus did not speak as a high- 
Lutheran, indeed hardly like a Lutheran at all. His doc- 
trine of the Lord's Supper emphasized the memorial 
aspect. He does not have anything about confession in 
connection with the sacraments as Luther's catechism 
has. He seems to have represented the spirit of the 
early reformation, when there was neither Lutheran or 
Reformed, — that is when they were not set over against 
each other. He was a Lutheran before Luther formu- 
lated its doctrines hard and fast. And after Luther's 
death, in his reaction against the narrowness and sacra- 
mentarianism of the high-Lutherans, he seems to have 
gone over to Calvin. A letter of Moibanus to Calvin, 
written about the time that Ursinus went to the university 



THE CONVERSION OF URSINUS 



of Wittenberg, puts matters in a new light. It reveals 
that Moibanus had virtually become a Calvinist. The 
letter is dated September I, 1550, and reads thus: 

"Often enough, my dear Calvin, have I considered 
how I might find an opportunity to write to you, for we 
live very far away from each other. I make it my care 
to seek intercourse with learned persons. Your writings 
meet with my approval. Your Institutes I continually 
read anew, and without wishing to flatter you, I would 
say that all that comes from you meets with the ap- 
probation of great men. Poland is now busy with your 
letters and nothing else finds so much approval there. 
Indeed to speak truly there is no one today, who places 
himself so courageously against the Beast (of Rome) 
as yourself. You have enemies, with whom you bravely 
contend. The battle is now on for Helena, not the 
Greek one, but you know what I mean. The Lord be 
with you that you show yourself brave in controversy. 

"In the meantime, what are we (Germans) doing. 
We are quarreling among ourselves about the Interim. 
You have placed yourself with your entire person against 
the kingdom of Satan. I see how diligently you are 
working on the interpretation of the Pauline writings, 
which aim at the destruction of the bulwark of the 
enemy. I would like very much to see a list of your 
works. With us such things seldom succeed. I pray 
you to have your Pauline writings, together with your 
commentaries on them, printed in one volume. Because 
of my little skill in the interpretation of them, I, myself, 
miss the exact expression in the interpretation of their 
Hebraisms. Paul, it is true, wrote in Greek, but after 
the custom of his people, he made use of Hebrew forms 
of speech. You do right, dear Calvin, to bestow your 
time on such useful studies. Erasmus, as the court theo- 
logian of his time, allowed himself to miss the depth of 
thought in many references. Often he evidently did not 
grasp the ideas of Paul. I have long sought for your 
Psalms. At any rate, I once noticed that you had trans- 
lated the Hebrew into Latin. Gladly do I express the 
wish that you especially undertake what will be of benefit 



246 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



to the Church. May you live well in Christ. 

Ambrosius Moibanus. 

This letter would make it appear that Moibanus ac- 
cepted Calvin's views. His approval of Calvin's Insti- 
tutes is quite significant. Is it at all surprising that, when 
Moibanus wrote so favorably of Calvin's writings, his 
pupil, Ursinus, should afterward become a Calvinist. The 
truth seems to be that the beginnings of Ursinus' Calvin- 
ism were in his youth. Though, as a boy he did not 
know the differences between Lutheranism and the Re- 
formed, but he was caught in an atmosphere which clung 
to him ever afterward. He learned this from his pastor 
and teacher in the school, Moibanus. In other words, 
from what was virtually a Reformed impression he went 
to the university at Wittenberg. 

Then, at the university, what happened. He stayed 
there for seven years, 1550-1557. He was there in the 
closest association with Melancthon. His letters reveal 
his intense admiration for Melancthon and his deep sym- 
pathy with him against the attacks made on him by the 
high-Lutherans, as Westphal and Flacius. He declares 
he stayed at Wittenberg only because of Melancthon's in- 
fluence. He gives his estimate of Melancthon in a letter 
to Crato, January 10, 1557. Speaking of the contro- 
versies with the high-Lutherans, he writes : 

"I am of the opinion that Dr. Philip teaches what 
is right, and has been fortunate enough to teach us in 
a holy and pure way, the real substance of the holy 
sacrament. Dr. Philip never swerves, but sticks to what 
is true, secure, important and necessary, never losing 
sight of what is sublime and divine. Personally I do 
not hesitate to confess that I have been benefitted and 
learned more from his impressive method of teaching 
than from the vague commentaries of his opponents." 



THE CONVERSION OF URSINUS 



247 



Prof. Lang calls attention to his language early in 
1557, where he says: "When Phillip has spoken I can not 
and dare not think otherwise," also to his objection to 
"Stoic Necessity," which places him in outspoken opposi- 
tion to Calvin's doctrine of predestination. On the other 
hand, Ursinus speaks of Calvin several times in his letters. 
He speaks of Calvin's defense against Westphal twice in 
1556, and also (October 3, 1556) of Calvin's visit to 
Frankford. 

There is, however, one letter to Crato, that of March 
22, 1556, which contains a sentence that may be signifi- 
cant. Rott, who republished these letters of Ursinus, 
thinks it is a sign that Ursinus was predestinarian.* Ur- 
sinus writes thus: "I belong to that circle, to whom the 
fact of their election stands as certain." To this infer- 
ence of Rott, Prof. A. Lang objects, saying that Ursinus 
does not refer to his personal election there, but uses the 
word elect in the general sense. 

But we are inclined to believe there is more in it 
than Lang grants. 

1. The sentence is personal, for it uses the first per- 
son. Besides, in it he expresses the personal hope of the 
certainty of his election. 

2. It is strange that he used the word "election" at 
all, because all that was Reformed was being so bitterly 
attacked just at that time, by Westphal and Flacius. A 
true Lutheran would hardly have used Reformed verbiage 
at all. 

3. If it had been the custom of Melancthon to gen- 
erally use the word "elect" in its general sense as mean- 
ing Christians, then we could account for Ursinus using 
it here. But we have to some extent examined Melanc- 

* Prof. Lauterberg, in Hauck's "Real Encyclopaedia," also 
thinks so. 



248 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



thon's "Loci," in German, and also his "Consideration 
of Ordinances," and he generally uses the words "saints" 
or "the converted" for Christians and not the elect. Ur- 
sinus' use of the word is therefore strange. And its refer- 
ence seems to us stronger because he speaks not of the 
elect, but of election. It seems to us that his earlier Cal- 
vinistic tendencies cropped out unintentionally, or he may 
have been reading about Calvin's controversy with West- 
phal, for, as we have seen, he speaks of Calvin a number 
of times in his letters. The least that can be made out of 
this passage is that he was familiar with the doctrine of 
God's election. And yet, in spite of this passage, which 
seems to be in conflict with his Melancthonianism while 
at the university, we believe that Gillet is probably cor- 
rect, when, in his "Crato of Crafftheim,"* he says that 
"Ursinus left Wittenberg a real follower of Melanethon." 

We now pass on to the next period of Ursinus' life — 
his travels, after leaving the university of Wittenberg. 
And here it is a noticeable fact, that almost all of 
his travels were in Reformed lands. Of all the univer- 
sities that he went to, only one was Lutheran, — namely, 
Tubingen. He was at the Reformed schools of Basle, 
Paris, Geneva and Zurich. The only teacher he specially 
mentions is Mercier, of Paris. Calvin, at Geneva, see- 
ing his talents, presented him with one of his works. 
And Fries, at Zurich, invited him, if he ever needed a 
refuge, to come to Zurich. Zurich was so attractive that 
he visited it a second time, when Peter Martyr made a 
deep impression on him. From his long sojourn among 
them, it is evident the Reformed most interested him. 

Then came the next period of his life, when he was 
teacher at Breslau, 1558-1560. During this time, two 
works of his appear, which we may examine for any 

* Vol. I, p. 180. 



THE CONVERSION OF URSINUS 



signs. The one was his "Inaugural Address," the other 
was his "Theses on the Sacraments," published at Breslau 
as his defence against the high-Lutherans. 

His "Inaugural Address" was on a general subject. 
It is an exhortation to the study of Christianity. It was 
just such an address as a teacher of religion would make 
in order to urge his pupils to study religion. However, 
there is a significant passage in it: 

"Neither are catechisms any other than a summary 
declaration of such sentences of Scripture. Now this 
little Consideration (of Ordinances, prepared by Melanc- 
thon, which he was to use there), we intend to propose 
to you is such and its author has faithfully and with 
great dexterity comprehended the chief grounds of 
Christianity in proper and plain language. And it seems 
that it would be beneficial that in other churches there 
should be a like form of catechism extant. Prepare your- 
selves to speedily learn it." 

He then sums up the reasons he had previously given 
to do this, the commandment of God, your own salvation, 
your duty to posterity, the example of a purer Church, 
your manner of life, your friend's desires and hopes, the 
imminent danger of our times, and the rewards and pun- 
ishments we are to look for in God's hands. 

In this passage there are two references that are in- 
teresting. Is it not significant that he refers to cate- 
chisms in other lands — that there ought to be a like form 
of catechism. This seems to have been an unconscious 
prophecy of his own writing a catechism later. Or, bet- 
ter, it shows the unconscious tendency of his mind to- 
ward catechizing. 

In this address, he also refers to the persecuted breth- 
ren in England, referring to Lasco and his Reformed con- 
gregation, whose sufferings had evidently made a deep 
impression on him. 



250 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



In teaching at Breslau he used the work of Melanc- 
thon, which had appeared while he was at the university, 
the "Consideration of Ordinances." This work is, of 
course, Melancthonian. In its answer on the Lord's Sup- 
per it taught : 

"What is given out and received in the Lord's Supper ? 
The true body and blood of the Lord Jesus. For the 
Lord Jesus has instituted this eating and drinking, so 
that he shows that he will be truly and essentially with 
us and in us and will live in the converted to communi- 
cate to them his benefits and be powerful in them." 

But Ursinus' teaching of it did not at all please the 
high-Lutherans, for they attacked him for being a Calvin- 
ist. This charge would not necessarily prove that he was 
a Calvinist, for the high-Lutherans charged every one in 
the Lutheran Church who did not agree with them with 
being a Calvinist. It at least meant that he was a Me- 
lancthonian. To show to them his position he published 
his first work, "Theses on the Doctrine of the Sacra- 
ments." This work called forth the strongest praise of 
Melancthon, who wrote to Ferinarius, and said : "I have 
well known his learning up to this time, but I have never 
seen anything so brilliant as in this work." It is, how- 
ever, to be noticed that what Melancthon praises seems 
to be his splendid arrangement and fundamental treat- 
ment. But, in spite of Melancthon's praise and a let- 
ter of Melancthon admonishing peace, the high-Lutherans 
so attacked him that he had to resign. His treatise 
had only laid bare his position and the high-Lutherans 
were only too glad to utilize any weakness to Lutheran- 
ism in it against him. Indeed, they had influence enough 
to have the book forbidden in Breslau, and there was 
nothing left but for him to resign from his school and 
leave Breslau. 



THE CONVERSION OF URSINUS 



The question therefore arises: Is there anything in 
this publication to justify the charge of the high-Lu- 
therans that he was Reformed and not Lutheran ; — were 
there any signs of Calvinism in the work. The work 
consists of 123 theses, of which 51 are on the sacraments 
in general, 12 on baptism, and 60 on the Lord's Supper. 
They are remarkable in their clearness, logicalness, thor- 
oughness and wide mastery of the whole subject. This 
is especially true when one remembers that Ursinus was 
only twenty-five years of age at their publication. In 
them he talks like an old professor after years of study. 
No wonder Melancthon went into ecstasies over them, 
especially at Ursinus' learning and ability in them. A 
great thinker had arisen. Ursinus also reveals his great 
power at analysis that afterwards made him a master 
dialectician. 

On the Lord's Supper, they in the main follow Me- 
lancthon's views. Their method of statement is Melanc- 
thonian. The influence of Melancthon's work "The Con- 
sideration of Ordinances," which he was using as a text- 
book at Breslau is evident in them. But while they were 
in the main Melancthonian, there were some outcroppings 
of the Calvinism he had imbibed. Thus in theses 16 and 
18 on the sacraments, he speaks of election. This was 
not wise at that time in view of the strained relations 
to the high-Lutherans at Breslau. Their use, however, 
shows that he was beginning to think in terms of the 
Reformed categories. Then again, in theses 25, on the 
Lord's Supper, he has a reference to Christ's body in 
heaven at the Lord's Supper. Now these were Calvin- 
istic outcroppings. His association with the Swiss had 
evidently affected him. And his opponents at Breslau 
were quick to seize these signs and to use them against 
him. So Sudhoff is right in his estimate that in them 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



Ursinus went beyond Melancthon in the direction of Cal- 
vin. And yet Ursinus does not define things according 
to Calvin's categories or use the Calvinistic terminology, 
though it is evident he is drifting thither. Had Melanc- 
thon only spoken even as clearly as Ursinus did here, 
on the body of Christ as in heaven at the Lord's Supper, 
there might have been a slight basis of truth for the 
Melancthon-Calvinistic theology.* 

He left Breslau with an honorable dismissal, and on 
the condition that he would return if desired. His words 
at his departure to his uncle Roth, when asked, where 
he would go, were 

"Not unwillingly do I leave my fatherland, since it 
does not permit the confession of the truth, which I can 
not with good conscience give up. If my teacher Melanc- 
thon still lived, I would go nowhere else but to him. 
But as he is dead (Melancthon had died shortly before), 
I will go to Zurich where there are pious, great and 
learned men. As for the rest, God will care." 

Goebel makes a beautiful remark on this : "This shows 
that among the living, none were nearer to him than at 
Zurich and among the dead than Melancthon." 

Then comes the final scene in this topic, when he 
avows himself Reformed. In a letter written from Zurich 
to Crato, October 6, 1560, he declares his full agreement 
with the doctrine of the Swiss on the sacraments, provi- 
dence, election freewill, the human statutes of the 
Church and the rigidity of Christian Church discipline. 
Now the fact that he wrote this confession of being Re- 
formed only three days after he arrived at Zurich, is signi- 
ficant. He could not have changed from Lutheranism, 
even low-Lutheranism, to Calvinism, especially on elec- 
tion, in three days. He could not have changed as sud- 

*See Chapter II, page 173. 



THE CONVERSION OF URSINUS 



253 



denly as that. The process must have been going on in 
his mind before he came to Zurich. He must have been 
Reformed in mind and spirit before he came to Zurich. 

Now when did this change take place. We have given 
all the light that can be found. We have tried carefully to 
weigh it and combine it. We may have erred in our esti- 
mate, for the whole subject is more difficult. Indeed, 
sometimes subjects become more difficult the more light 
you get on them, as instead of clearing the subject they 
make it more difficult. We believe, however, that the 
summary of the whole subject may be this, — that Ursinus 
when he was a boy under Moibanus' instruction at Bres- 
lau, was under what were virtually Reformed influences. 
He, therefore, went to Wittenberg with no strong and 
specific Lutheran basis of thought. At the university, 
Melancthon's strong influence led him up to low-Luth- 
eranism. Yet even there his previous Reformed tenden- 
cies revealed themselves occasionally. When he left the 
university for travel, it was mainly in Reformed lands and 
though he came back to Germany a Melancthonian, or at 
least believed himself to be, yet the influence of the Re- 
formed on him in his travels, especially of Peter Martyr, 
who later became to him what Melancthon had been to 
him before, his spiritual and theological guide, remained 
with him. When Melancthon died that broke the last tie 
to Lutheranism. He followed his early inclination, 
which had been deepened by his travels and went over 
entirely to the Reformed faith. In his letter^back to 
Breslau, he declared that if Breslau wanted him back 
(for there was a coterie of his friends, among them 
Crato, who hoped to win him back) that it would be on 
condition that he would be allowed to teach the doctrine 
taught at Zurich. 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



So Ursinus became Reformed. Lutheranism lost its 
brightest theologian at a time when it most needed him. 
He would have been a great tower of strength had he 
remained at Wittenberg, as was desired. And the Re- 
formed Church gained not merely a great theologian, but 
also the one who wrote her greatest book, the Heidelberg 
catechism. 



CHAPTER VI. 



CRATO OF CRAFFTHEIM, URSINUS' PATRON 

The life of the patron of Ursinus, Dr. John Krafft, 
or as his name has come down to us, Crato of Crafft- 
heim, gives us a delightful insight into the life of one 
of the authors of the Heidelberg catechism. The cor- 
respondence between Crato and Ursinus is a new and 
powerful sidelight into Ursinus' life. 

John Krafft was born November 20, 15 19, at Breslau. 
Like his later protege, Ursinus, he attended the school 
of the St. Elizabeth's Church there. He was a poor boy 
and for thirteen years received stipends for his support, 
just as Ursinus later received from him. Intending to 
study for the ministry, he went at the age of fifteen, in 
1534, to the university of Wittenberg. There Luther 
took him into his own house and he lived for six years 
in close fellowship with the great reformer. But though 
so close to Luther, he was more attracted by Melancthon, 
who had the charge of his studies. He excelled in the 
classics, especially in Cicero, so that Melancthon later 
gave his literary style a special name, "the Cratonian 
diction," because it revealed such clearness and beauty. 
Luther was also greatly pleased with his ability and 
wanted him for the church, but seeing he was too weak 
for preaching and that he had a decided inclination to 
medicine, he advised him to give up theology for medi- 
cine, as Protestant physicians of the first rank were at 
that time greatly needed. He soon gained the master's 
degree at the university and then lectured on Aristotle 

255 



256 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



and Plato with great success. 

He then became tutor to a noble and accompanied 
him to Leipsic, at whose university there was more room 
for young lecturers like himself. But he found that 
there, as at Wittenberg, there were no famous professors 
of medicine. He, however, found a patron in Prof. 
Joachim Camerarius, one of the most celebrated philolo- 
gists and theologians of his day. So he went to Italy, 
the Mecca at that time, of the medical profession. 
Through the influence of Melancthon and Camerarius, 
the Duke of Prussia gave him money enough for this 
trip, in order that he might prepare himself to become 
a private physician to the nobility. At the university of 
Padua he found in Professor Montanus a great friend 
and guide, such as Luther had been to him in faith, 
and Melancthon in philosophy and theology. Montanus 
was one of the greatest physicians of his day, combining 
the new discoveries of medicine with the older methods. 

After gaining his medical degree there, he practiced 
for a short time at Verona and then returned to Breslau, 
in 1550, by way of Augsburg. He expected to make 
Breslau his home and so married there. He soon re- 
vealed his advanced methods of medical practice. For 
he was the first German physician who held that the 
plague was a contagious disease. The plague broke out 
in Breslau, in 1553, the sixth time in that century. He 
was the first to draw up rules about it and introduced 
police regulations to isolate and suppress it. He dis- 
closed to physicians the difference between a non-contag- 
ious and miasmatic disease. As a result, Breslau had no 
visit of the plague for thirty-four years. His success 
gave him great fame and the city, in 1554, recognized 
his services by giving him an annuity of one hundred 
dollars. He also, as a progressive physician, attempted 



CRATO OF CRAFFTHEIM 



to introduce in Breslau, what Paris had, namely, regular 
druggists. In 1554 he added to his fame by publishing 
two important works on medicine. 

As a result his fame became so great that he was 
called to be private physician to the Emperor of Ger- 
many, Ferdinand I. For, though the Emperors of Ger- 
many were Catholics, yet they had Protestant physicians. 
Crato had the honor of being private physician to no 
less than three of the Emperors in succession, Ferdinand 
I, Maximilian II and Rudolph II. Only one other Prot- 
estant had a similar honor, and he a Reformed, Ambroise 
Pare, who was private physician to four of the French 
kings, even though they were Catholics. The Protestant 
kings did not dare to trust the Catholic physicians thus, 
for the Catholic physicians, at the instigation of the 
Jesuits, sometimes secretly poisoned a number of Protes- 
tant princes as Dukes Bernard of Weimar, and Henry of 
Rohan. Crato became court physician in 1560 and re- 
mained with the King till he died, in 1564. In 1563 he 
left Breslau and for nearly twenty years spent his time 
with the court. He exerted considerable influence with 
Ferdinand, in making him milder against the Protestants, 
in the hope of winning them back to Romanism. 

It is interesting to note that it was during this early 
period of Crato's life that he began the financial support 
of Ursinus at the university of Wittenberg. It is some- 
what remarkable that he should begin this so soon, for 
he commenced only a year after he began practicing 
medicine at Breslau. But then, Crato supported other 
students, especially those in medicine. It is remarkable 
that he helped Ursinus, as when he first began, he had 
never yet seen him. He perhaps helped Ursinus be- 
cause he felt that he had started out to enter the ministry 
and then been turned aside from it : he therefore wanted 



17 



258 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



to put some one in the ministry to take his place, and 
he therefore aided Ursinus. He never invested money 
more profitably for himself or for the Church than what 
he put into Ursinus. For Ursinus became one of the 
greatest theologians of that day. Crato is a noble ex- 
ample to many of our people today, who have financial 
means, and yet for sufficient reasons, are prevented from 
entering in the ministry. The example of Crato in doing 
this ought to give to them a suggestion and an inspira- 
tion to put some one into the ministry in their place. 

And Ursinus, whom he aided, became a great blessing, 
not only to the world, but also to Crato himself. This 
is shown by their correspondence, which was continued 
down to Ursinus' death. When later Crato became royal 
physician, he never was too busy to read a letter from 
Ursinus or to write one to him. It is interesting to 
notice that both Crato and Ursinus enter upon their life 
work about the same time. Crato became royal physician 
in 1560, and Ursinus professor at Heidelberg in 1561. 
It is also very interesting to see how the lives of Crato 
and Ursinus run parallel and yet are interwoven. Be- 
fore Crato became royal physician, he had begun Ursinus' 
support at Wittenberg. But their correspondence con- 
tinued while Ursinus was in the university. Ursinus is 
continually expressing his great thankfulness to Crato 
for his aid. Of these six years of his university life, 
thirty-nine letters that Ursinus wrote to Crato have come 
down to us. Crato soon found that he had discovered a 
great helper in Ursinus. Crato was a man of books, 
and yet he was far away from the book markets when 
he was at Breslau. So Ursinus, who was near the book 
market at Leipsic, would keep him informed about the 
books, especially new books, and would buy them for 
Crato whenever he wanted them. A very beautiful illus- 



CRATO OF CRAFFTHEIM 



259 



tration of Crato's kindness is shown in an incident that 
occurred during Ursinus' university life. In a letter 
written January, 1554, Ursinus gives expression to a 
great desire to have the works of Cicero, which he was 
too poor to buy. The suggestion was enough. Crato 
bought them and two months later Ursinus, in a letter, 
expresses his great thankfulness for the gift. 

But perhaps the most remarkable result of this friend- 
ship between them was the way in which Ursinus in- 
fluenced Crato's religious belief. For it was the influ- 
ence of Ursinus that converted Crato to the Reformed 
faith. Crato, like Ursinus in the university, was a Me- 
lancthonian in doctrine. And when Ursinus got into 
trouble at Breslau because of his Melancthonianism, 
Crato stood by him, for he seemed to have no sympathy 
with the narrow high-Lutheranism. Fortunate was it 
that Ursinus had such a rich friend at that time. For 
when he resigned there as teacher, in 1560, and went 
away, not knowing whither he went, it was Crato who 
helped him financially. He had not gotten many stations 
away from Breslau, before he found a letter from Crato 
containing money. And when Ursinus shortly after pub- 
licly declares that he has become Reformed, Crato fol- 
lowed suit and became Reformed. Indeed, Crato's sym- 
pathy with Ursinus and the Melancthonians at Breslau 
made his position there uncomfortable. For the hatred 
of the high-Lutherans led him to be deprived of his posi- 
tion as doctor of the poor. And he was therefore very 
glad to get away from Breslau when he was called to 
be private physician to the King. 

Crato became a strong Reformed in his beliefs. 
He later translated Calvin's catechism into Latin and 
Greek. And during the latter part of his life he used 
it as a daily handbook. He underscored passages in it 



2 6o THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



which met his especial approval. Ah, Crato had given 
much to Ursinus, but he got back more than he gave. 
He got back what was worth more than his money. He 
realized this, for when Ursinus left Breslau, as he bade 
him farewell with the assurance of help, he said that 
Ursinus had offered him "eternal treasures." For 
Crato had received his religious and theological tenden- 
cies from Ursinus and kept them to his end. Crato, 
together with Ursinus' friends at Breslau, tried to get 
Ursinus back there; but Ursinus wrote them that if he 
came back, it must be as Reformed. He finally begged 
them to give up their efforts and went to Heidelberg. 
When Ursinus lived in Heidelberg, he still keeps up 
his correspondence with his patron. Very beautiful are 
their efforts to comfort and strengthen each other as 
trials and sicknesses come to each of them. Ursinus 
at Heidelberg, being near the great book market at 
Frankford, keeps Crato posted about books and often, 
at his request, buys them for him. 

After the death of Emperor Ferdinand, Crato went 
back to Breslau to live. But the next Emperor, Maxi- 
milian, was not a well man, as he had suffered for many 
years from heart trouble. So Crato was called back as 
private physician, in 1565, though he usually spent a 
month each year at Breslau. Maximilian had two 
other private physicians, all Protestants, but Crato was 
his favorite physician and was with him for about twelve 
years. Maximilian was the most liberal of the emperors 
toward the reformation. He greatly honored Crato and 
often made him his counselor in political matters, even 
though Crato was a Protestant. The comparative mild- 
ness of Maximilian, as compared with his predecessor 
and successor, was quite marked. His reign was the 
golden age of the reformation, especially in Austria. 



CRATO OF CRAFFTHEIM 



Then all the prominent nobles, except Bavaria, were 
Evangelical. Had Protestantism used this opportunity, 
and not torn itself asunder by strife between high- and 
low-Lutherans and Calvinists, Austria today would prob- 
ably be prevailing Protestant, and there would have been 
no awful Thirty Years' War in the next century. 

It was during this period that Crato became the pro- 
tector and pillar of the Protestants in Austria. For he 
became the power behind the throne. If any one wanted 
influence at court they sought it through him. He espe- 
cially used his influence to protect the Bohemian Brethren, 
with whom he came into contact while with the court at 
Prague. In 1567 one of their leaders employed him as 
physician at Vienna, and after that Crato became their 
defender and mediator at court. A beautiful illustration 
is told of him. One day, while the Emperor was taking 
a walk alone with Crato, their conversation turned on 
the divisions with which Christendom was torn. The 
Emperor asked his favorite, which of the varied sects 
seemed to him to approach nearest to apostolic sym- 
plicity. "I do not know any, of whom it can be more 
truly said," replied Crato, "than of the Bohemian Breth- 
ren, who are also called Picards." The Emperor replied, 
"I believe that myself." This remark led Crato to ad- 
vise the Brethren to dedicate their new hymnbook to the 
Emperor. They followed his advice and the dedication 
is still extant, in which they express the hope that the 
Emperor would, like David, Josiah, Constantine and 
Theodosius, be a nursing-father to the Church. When 
the Lutherans, Reformed and Brethren united at Send- 
omir, he tried to effect their union with the churches of 
the Augsburg Confession, so that they might gain greater 
privileges. 

Maximilian greatly honored him and, about 1567, ele- 



262 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



vated him to the rank of nobility ; so that plain Dr. John 
Krafft now became Dr. Crato of Crafftheim, the name 
by which he is usually known in history. In 1574, when 
the Melancthonians were driven out of Wittenberg, it 
was expected that that would reduce his influence at 
court and perhaps cause him the loss of his position. 
But instead, the next year Maximilian granted him a 
new honor by giving to him, and also to his son, the 
high title of Pfalzgraf. He also made him doctor of 
law, philosophy and medicine, with all the academic 
rights belonging to those degrees. Today a man may 
be a doctor of law or philosophy or medicine, but Crato 
had all of them together. During Maximilian's life, his 
fame spread to all parts of Europe. 

But Crato tired of court life in spite of its many ad- 
vantages. He had to be away a great deal from Breslau, 
as the Emperor was not well and traveled around a 
great deal. He longed for the enjoyment of home. Fre- 
quent spells of ill health added to his ill humor. Dis- 
satisfaction at the court also began to show itself. Ow- 
ing to the increasing illness of the Emperor, a strong 
party arose against him in the court, who questioned 
his medical treatment of the Emperor. On one occasion, 
it went so far as to call in a quack, a woman doctor. 
Against this Crato protested and when he was called 
back it was too late. The Emperor died and Crato went 
back to Breslau, expecting to remain there. For one of 
the other private physicians of the late King attacked 
his medical treatment of Maximilian in a pamphlet, and 
thus tried to injure his reputation. 

It is strange how the periods of the life of Crato and 
Ursinus synchronize. We have seen how about the time 
Crato became royal physician, Ursinus became professor 
at Heidelberg. And now again, about the time that Crato 



CRATO OF CRAFFTHEIM 



263 



left the court and went back to Breslau, in 1576, Ur- 
sinus was driven out of Heidelberg after the death of 
Elector Frederick III, when his son and successor, Lewis, 
reintroduced Lutheranism there. When that catastro- 
phe occurred, Ursinus was thrown out in the world with- 
out any resources. He had nothing and knew not where 
to go. Ursinus, in a letter of November 24, 1576, speak- 
ing of the change caused by Elector Frederick's death, 
thus writes to Crato: "As for me, I have no objection 
to be sent away from this treadmill. I am only regret- 
ting that it is winter and I am not in possession of any 
money for traveling, neither can I say that I am prepared, 
should I be ordered to leave. This and all other matters 
do I commit to God." We here see revealed the ex- 
tremity of Ursinus and yet his beautiful trust in God. 

Then it was, in his time of greatest need, that his old 
friend Crato again came to his assistance. Crato loaned 
him three hundred dollars which tided him over until he 
became professor at the new university of Neustadt. 

Returning to Crato, although he had gone back to 
Breslau after the death of Emperor Maximilian, expect- 
ing to spend the rest of his life there, he was not per- 
mitted to do so. For the next Emperor, Rudolph II, 
called him back to the court as private physician. 
Though this emperor dismissed many Protestants in his 
court, among them the two other Protestant physicians, 
yet he called Crato to his side. Crato hesitated at first, 
for he knew that the new emperor was an intense Cath- 
olic, much less liberal than Maximilian. He also knew 
that a party at the court had been formed against him. 
But finally, at the urgent solicitation of friends, he ac- 
cepted. 

But he soon found that he had a very difficult posi- 
tion to fill. The papal party at court made him very 



264 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



uncomfortable. Their cause was aided by the continued 
illness of the Emperor, which cast discredit at Crato's 
medical treatment. The anxiety and continued care of 
his master finally broke down his health, so that he re- 
signed his position, in 1581. He retired to a country- 
seat, at Ruckersdorf, a mile from Breslau, on the road 
to Prague. There he built a church and had a Reformed 
minister, who was the first in Lutheran Silesia. He in- 
troduced the Reformed custom of preaching on the cate- 
chism on Sunday afternoons, in which, Olevianus' hand- 
book, "The Strong Foundation," was used. The Lu- 
theran minister, however, opposed this effort to intro- 
duce the Reformed faith. 

But Crato found that his country-seat was too far 
out of the world for one with such a large correspon- 
dence. So, in 1583, he went back to Breslau to live. 
It was during his stay in his country-seat that one of 
Ursinus' last letters was written to him. It is a letter 
wonderfully revealing Ursinus' hope and his consola- 
tion to Crato. He writes : 

"May it please the Lord still to spare you in the 
miseries of this life. You know that diseases are crosses 
that have to be borne as long as they last, with patience, 
especially at your age, which is the time for disease. 
Undoubtedly you have overcome the sickness of spirit, 
otherwise you will overcome it with the medicine of that 
Heavenly Doctor, through whose exhaustion we get 
strength, through whose body, blood and spirit we have 
life, so that we shall not taste death in eternity, but be 
alive when we are dead, inasmuch as we, through faith, 
have passed from death to life and are not to be judged. 
I am, therefore, in no doubt whatever in regard to 
the power of your spirit, because, to him that hath shall 
be given. He that hath begun the good work within us 
will also finish it. The consciences of unbelievers are 
also convinced by the clearness of Scripture. The Word 



CRATO OF CRAFFTHEIM 



265 



of God is sharper than any two-edged sword. Those 
who pray to God become enlightened and fortified, will 
be released from all their doubts, for it is written, 
'Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteous- 
ness for they shall be filled.' The greater presuppo- 
sition of our pious comfort is this chief truth of Holy 
Scripture. 'He that believeth on the Son hath life.' 
The minor one is but this desire for faith, 'I believe 
Lord, help my unbelief." 

And from these truths he arrives at the conclusion: 
"Therefore, I have life eternal and from everlasting I 
have been elected to this life and no one can separate 
me from the love of God, which is in Christ, neither 
can any snatch me away from the hands of my Father 
and Shepherd.' 

"When you firmly believe and yet are troubled with 
doubts, it proves that in reality you are a believer, who 
has received the gift of the Spirit, which cries, 'Abba 
Father' and who represents you before the throne with 
unspeakable signs. You, yourself, have attained to such 
an age as few go beyond. I fail to see what can give 
you lasting joy in this world. Happy are they who 
die in the Lord. Flesh and nature within us may sigh 
and shudder, yet the heart will sing, 'Lord now lettest 
Thou Thy servant depart in peace for mine eyes have 
seen Thy salvation.' To you theology is not mere dia- 
lectics, but it is a means. I have also come to know 
this more by practice than by theory. Therefore, I pray, 
Almighty God, that it may please him to relieve your 
bodily sufferings, as well as those of your mind, that 
you will be able to do only what he will have you 
do, and that your confidence shall be, that what he has 
ordained for you, is best." 

Thus does Ursinus beautifully comfort Crato in his 
old age and failing health. It was almost the last letter 
of Ursinus. What a beautiful insight the letter gives of 
Ursinus' piety and hope. 

Crato spent the remainder of his days in Breslau. 
But he found that he had been away for so many years 



266 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



at the Emperor's court, that he was now a comparative 
stranger. Yet, in a small circle, especially of learned 
men, he met a warm reception. During his day, the 
Reformed, though they had no Church at Breslau, were 
accustomed to hold conventicles or meetings for prayer 
and Bible study at the house of Dudith. In these, Crato 
joined whenever his health permitted. He died in 1585 
or 1586, of catarrh. He died in the arms of his friend, 
Dr. John Herman. His last words were: "I live and 
thou shalt live." During his last years, owing to in- 
creasing infirmities, the religious and the spiritual be- 
came more and more prominent. It was at this time 
that he wrote a collection of Latin religious poems which 
were published after his death by a friend. They were 
like a religious diary, in which, he gave expression to 
his religious views and aspirations. They were full of 
thoughts about God, redemption and immortality, now 
in a complaining, now in a comforting tone, now an 
inquiry and now in a reflective mood. 

Crato was one of the most prominent men of his age. 
He was prominent as a physician. His biographer, in 
Hauck's "Real-Encyclopsedia," gives him the honor of 
being the reformer of the materia medica of the Middle 
Ages. If his protege, Ursinus, was a reformer of the 
Church, he was a reformer in medicine, preparing it for 
a new materia medica. And if Pare, the great Huguenot 
physician, his great Reformed contemporary, put medi- 
cine under everlasting obligation by the discovery of the 
ligature of the arteries, Crato made medical science his 
debtor in the new materia medica. He ranked with the 
leading physicians of his day, with Vesalius, in Spain, 
and Gessner, in Zurich. He was also prominent in poli- 
tics, and, what is most significant, a Protestant in the 
midst of a Catholic court. It is here that we begin to 



CRATO OF CRAFFTHEIM 



267 



realize the greatness of the influence of Ursinus. 
Ursinus, by his friendship and advice of Crato, through 
his letters, became a factor in the court of the emporer. 
We have no direct evidence of any particular influence. 
But Ursinus is continually acquainting Crato with the 
political news of Europe in his letters. No one can 
measure how far this silent influence of Ursinus may 
have influenced Crato politically. The influence of Ur- 
sinus' correspondence was not only great all over Europe, 
but even to the Emperor's court, as he wrote to Crato. 
And the correspondence of these two men is a beautiful 
evidence of Christian friendship and mutual helpfulness. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE UNIVERSITY DAYS OF URSINUS* 

Ursinus College is named after Ursinus. Ursinus 
College, we know, with its reputation for beautiful situa- 
tion, for careful and thorough education, and for success 
in athletics. But who was the man after whom it was 
named? I fear that some of these twentieth-century 
scholars, who think that our age knows everything, and 
who look upon all that has gone before them at antede- 
luvian, may think that he was some fossilized old theo- 
logian or some behind-the-times professor. Well, he is 
behind our time, because he lived 350 years ago, but that, 
we had better say, was before our time : — "some fossil- 
ized professor," not for his time, when he was quite in 
the forefront of the education of his day with his hu- 
manism. It is well, therefore, for our time to get better 
acquainted with him. I have recently had his Latin cor- 
respondence translated. There are about forty letters 
that he wrote to his great patron, Dr. Crato, during his 
university days. Out of them I have taken my subject 
for today, a subject that ought to be especially interesting 
to college men, "The University Days of Ursinus." 

A word, first, in regard to his life, so that we may 
get the proper setting of this subject. He was born 
July 18, 1534, at Breslau, in eastern Germany. His 
name, Zachariah Baer, was, after the custom of his day, 

* Address delivered at Ursinus College, Collegeville, Pa., on 
Founder's Day, February 19, 1914. It has been left unchanged so 
as to be issued as a tract. 

268 



URSINUS' UNIVERSITY DAYS 269 



latinized into "Ursinus." At the age of sixteen, he left 
home for the university of Wittenberg. After studying 
there for seven years, from 1550 to 1557, he travelled for 
a year in western Europe, and then returned to Breslau, 
to teach languages and religion. But a religious contro- 
versy broke out there, and, after two years, he resigned. 
After spending a year at Zurich, he was called, in 1561, 
to Heidelberg, as professor of theology in the university 
there. In 1578, he became prof essor of theology at the 
new university of Neustadt, west of Heidelberg, and 
died there, March 6, 1583, not quite fifty years of age. 

He was a very learned man, one of the most promi- 
nent theologians and teachers of his day. He belonged 
to the second generation of reformers. Luther, Me- 
lancthon, Zwingli and Calvin belonged to the first genera- 
tion. But, in the second generation of them, Ursinus 
ranks next to Bullinger and Beza. And it is a question 
whether, on some things, he does not equal, or even 
excel them. He was especially profound in philosophy 
and theology, and acute in dialectics, as the logic of his 
day was called. He is one of the few persons of that day 
who was considered important enough, so that his com- 
plete works were gathered together and published. This 
shows the honor and esteem in which he was held by his 
contemporaries. 

The only thing that tended to lessen his fame was 
his great modesty. And yet that trait is often, in itself, 
a sign of greatness. For, in our day, the greatest talkers 
don't keep still long enough to accumulate thoughts. 
Ursinus was so modest that I am afraid that if he had 
known you were going to name this college after him, 
he would have declined the honor, because he felt him- 
self unworthy. For it is to be remembered that he was, 
if anything, overconscientious, even with a tinge of 



270 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



melancholy. Indeed, in his later days, nothing but the 
express command of his prince could bring him out into 
public address. I wonder whether there are any such 
modest people here in Ursinus now. But when he did 
speak in public, it was with great power. Still he was 
more of a teacher than anything else. The lecturer's 
desk in the university was his throne, where he was an 
uncrowned king. After his death, the leading Protestant 
thinkers of Europe vied to do him honor. He left be- 
hind him a generation of his pupils, who became leaders 
of thought. As a humanist from boyhood, he stood in 
the forefront of the education of that day. This college 
need not be ashamed to be named after him. For he 
was one of the leading thinkers and educators of that 
age. His correspondence with prominent persons in all 
parts of Europe demonstrates the honor with which he 
was held. May Ursinus College ever stand true to the 
lofty ideals and noble example of such a man. 

But I am not to speak of Ursinus as he was in his 
later days — one of the greatest teachers of his day. 
I am to speak of his youthful days, when he was just 
beginning his studies, when he was not the great man 
that he afterwards became. I am to speak of his college 
days, when he was not greater than any student here. 
And you must not expect too much from him then — not 
more than you expect from yourselves. But, I think, it 
will bring you, who are in college, all the closer to him, as 
you look at him when he was like you — a student. And 
it will also bring him closer to you. 

Now, the first thing that he did in the university, of 
which we have any record, was to write poetry. He 
doubtless did other things before that, for it was not 
until he had been there a year that this poem appears. 
But this poem is the first writing that has come down 



URSINUS' UNIVERSITY DAYS 



to us. I don't know whether any of the students of 
Ursinus College write poetry, whether the banks of the 
Perkiomen are especially able to inspire the poetic Muse, 
or whether you have the Muses around here in the trees 
on the campus, lurking, perhaps, like owls. Sometimes 
there are real poets in college. 

But Ursinus wrote poetry, and wrote it in his second, 
or sophomore, year. What won't sophomores do! And 
it was poetry in Latin, fashioned somewhat after Virgil. 
Now, we must remember that the German students (for 
the European who is able, like us in America, to speak 
only one language, is a back number), were trained to 
speak Latin and Greek as fluently as their own language. 
And so it became easy to them to write in Latin, and 
even in Latin poetry. 

The reason why Ursinus wrote poetry is interesting. 
There are many things about Ursinus that make him 
very much like the average college student of today, even 
though three and a half centuries have intervened. He, 
like many students today, had no money to go through 
college. Had it not been for friends at Breslau, who 
sent him to Wittenberg, he never would have gotten 
there. And he would never have been able to go on 
in college if he had not found a great friend in his 
patron, Dr. John Crato, one of the greatest physicians 
of his day, the private physician of three of the emperors 
of Germany. Crato, without having seen Ursinus, sent 
him money from Breslau. And Ursinus, overflowing 
with gratitude, just bubbled over with poetry. That is 
the way to be able to write poetry — you must bubble. 
But with many of us, the bubbling only results in froth, 
not poetry. And he bubbled over in Latin poetry, for 
he lived in the days of humanism, which made much of 
the classics. I will read a part of this first letter. It 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



will be in prose and not in poetry, for my poetic dic- 
tionary is frozen up, just at present, on account of the 
cold weather. The rhetoric of this letter may, perhaps, 
seem somewhat exaggerated, but you must remember he 
was only seventeen years of age. Still, this poem-letter 
is interesting. At the beginning, he refers to the siege 
of the city of Shechem by the Syrians, which produced 
a great famine, but the supreme Father brought help, and 
the besiegers fled, leaving all the spoil for the besieged. 
So, he says, our merciful Father hears the cry of his 
people in distress: 

"Depressed with poverty, the way leading to the 
Muses (Parnassus) was almost closed to me, I had 
ceased to expect any happiness, and was just on the point 
of calling out, 'Fare-ye-well, ye Muses,' at this critical 
moment, the Heavenly Father sent me benefactors, who 
assisted me in my studies in a way that surpassed all 
my expectations. Your great kindness," he says to 
Crato, "to an unknown protege, should justly cause your 
benevolence to be better known. May you, therefore, 
as is most fitting, be called an ornament and light of 
the fatherland. May your fame be great among the 
disciples of Aesculapius, to whom you have brought such 
great honor and glory. Whilst you are surrounded by 
such beautiful virtues, and persons of such high rank, 
how can my poor Muse of poetry ever ascend to those 
high merits of yours. Alas ! in vain does she endeavor 
to extol your high qualities, in vain does she try to ex- 
press my thanks to you in a suitable way. As she, how- 
ever, is quite conscious of the noble way in which you 
have acted, she proves her good-will in striving to do 
this. My endeavors in this respect are problematical. 
The real proof of this will be my works, because, I con- 
fess, I know but little about the art of poetry. I can only 
ask you to consider this as a proof of my gratitude." 

Yes, it was his gratitude that made him write in 
poetry, and, for so young a man, it is quite creditable. 

His next prominent experience was quite different 



URSINUS' UNIVERSITY DAYS 



from anything that we have here in our colleges. The 
German student will often attempt to tutor younger stu- 
dents or those in lower classes. So Ursinus, to increase 
his exchequer, took as a student under him the son of a 
citizen of Breslau, who had aided him. But he soon 
found his hands more than full. He attempted to teach 
the boy, and also to watch over him very carefully — too 
rigidly, perhaps. And the boy, just at the critical age of 
outgrowing adolescence, when, with the power of a man, 
he had the common sense of a pigmy, soon bade de- 
fiance to his tutor's authority. The boy fell into bad 
company, which made it worse, and refused to reform, 
in spite of Ursinus' threats and tears. Ursinus wrote to 
his father, who wrote to the boy. He even got Melanc- 
thon to use his influence with the boy, but it was all in 
vain. The boy finally threatened to beat Ursinus, and 
did even strike him, so that Ursinus was in despair. 
Finally, after tutoring him for about eight months, Ur- 
sinus had him taken home, and he was discharged from 
the office of tutor. Ursinus was evidently not yet the 
teacher he later became. 

There was another difference between Ursinus then 
and the Ursinus student of today, Ursinus had no ath- 
letics in the university of Heidelberg. German universities 
do not make athletics prominent. Baseball and football 
are unknown, as also cricket of the Briton. They have 
no athletic sports or athletic matches between universities. 
Even the German boy does not have the outdoor games 
that make the life of the American boy so delightful. 
It would have been well if Ursinus in this respect had 
gone to Ursinus college. What he needed was athletics 
for he applied himself so closely that his health suffered. 
Such athletic training as is given now, would have sent 
his ill-health to the winds and prevented him from form- 
is 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



ing even in the university a tinge of melancholy. It 
would have prevented the shortening of his valuable life 
by overstudy and underexercise. 

But there was another experience of his in the uni- 
versity that may perhaps be that of some student here. 
He got into trouble with his boarding-house keeper. Its 
keeper was quite a prominent man, a Dr. Vitus, who 
charged him with setting a bad example to other students. 
He tells the story to Dr. Crato in one of his letters. 
"During my absence (from Wittenberg), two barons 
came here and Dr. Vitus gave them my rooms. On my 
return, Dr. Vitus offered me other rooms, but as they 
were badly situated and much too small, I refused to 
occupy them." This action made Dr. Vitus angry. Ur- 
sinus also found that in his absence these people had 
circulated false and unkind reports about him, that he 
was untruthful, ungrateful and disobedient. A year 
later, Dr. Vitus was again circulating severe and false 
reports against him. Ursinus thus writes : "What has 
enraged him seems to be that he imagined that I had 
written to his boarders, that the food at his house was 
such poor stuff that the eating of it made me sick. Of 
nothing else does he accuse me, except of ingratitude." 
Ursinus then determines to do what every one should 
do in the case of evil reports that are false, live them 
down by living for God, an example that I commend to 
any who may have to pass through similar experiences. 
That these charges were untrue, is shown by the fact 
that his teacher, Melancthon, stood by him. But as his 
trouble came from his boarding-house, it may be inter- 
esting to note, that during his student days he was in 
not less than nine boarding-houses, although in one of 
them he stayed for five years. For German universities 
do not have the dormitory system in vogue in American 



URSINUS' UNIVERSITY DAYS 



colleges. 

Such are some of the experiences of the student, 
after whom, this college is named. And now, before 
closing, permit me to call your attention to some things 
which were prominent in his university life and which 
deserve to be emulated by the students of Ursinus Col- 
lege today, if they would in any way desire to attain 
to any such prominence as was his, if only in a small 
degree. 

The first thing to be noticed is his industry, — his in- 
domitable industry. This does not come out so promi- 
nently in his letters, for he is never boastful. The only 
sign of it in them is, that he frequently speaks of being 
very busy, so that he apologizes that he has not been able 
to write to his patron, Crato. His industry is evident 
in other ways. The high opinion that his teacher, Me- 
lancthon, had of him, reveals it. Melancthon quite over- 
flows over Ursinus' first published booklet which revealed 
the results of his industry while in the university. His 
biographers speak of his great industry. He was in- 
dustrious, very industrious, in his life. Now that is 
the way to go through college properly. The student, 
who in college, is unfaithful to his studies, is unfaithful 
to himself. His habits in college will be apt to become 
his habits through life. May I appeal to the students of 
Ursinus to emulate Ursinus in this respect. To excel 
in life, means to excel in study here. There is no royal 
road to learning, but the road that has in it the sweat 
of the brow intellectually and the burning of the mid- 
night oil at study. 

There was another peculiarity of Ursinus in the uni- 
versity, and that was, the integrity of his character. The 
student who wastes his time in dissipation, his strength 
in immorality, only wrecks himself. I regret to say that 



276 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



scenes of dissipation take place only too commonly in 
German universities, and also in some American uni- 
versities, and are not unknown in the smaller colleges. 
For the period of life of the college and the university 
student is the age of moral stress and strain. Speaking 
of German universities, I can still see with what disgust 
the honored founder of this college, my esteemed friend, 
the Rev. Dr. Bomberger, looked upon a lot of university 
students at Erlangen, Germany, in 1884, drinking beer 
hilariously at a table in a public restaurant in the middle 
of the street. For the German, it seems, gets and drinks 
his beer anywhere. I remember the scenes of revelry 
at Heidelberg by the university students such as no 
American school would tolerate. I need not refer to the 
sword duels that are relics of barbarism that exist there. 
Such scenes were common in Ursinus' time, more com- 
mon than today. He refers to them a number of times 
in his correspondence. But his pure soul reacted against 
them. For in each of the German universities there are 
many, very many fine young men, like him, who will have 
nothing to do with such things. Repeatedly in his let- 
ters does Ursinus express his disgust at such actions. 
Thus he writes : "The general want of discipline here 
fills my heart with the greatest sorrow." He repeatedly 
speaks of the roughness of the students, and even of 
riots among them, so that some were robbed, yes, wounded. 
He once declared that he would not have stayed there 
any longer, but for the sake of his teacher, Melancthon, 
whom he greatly loved. Ursinus says he kept aloof from 
such bad company, for a man is known by the company 
he keeps. What an inspiration this noble life of Ur- 
sinus, pure in the very midst of temptation and sin, 
should be to every student of this college. What an 
incentive for each to set up noble ideals of the strictest 



URSINUS' UNIVERSITY DAYS 



integrity and highest conscientiousness. 

"My strength is as the strength of ten, 
Because my heart is pure." 

Of course, all this integrity was based on a Christian 
experience, for religion is the basis of character. Christ 
is the model for every student, and he is also their in- 
spirer to nobility and purity of life. 

There might be another prominent trait of Ursinus 
noted in closing. It is his deep gratitude. This is very 
prominent in his letters. Ursinus was a poor boy, as 
we have seen. But for Dr. Crato, he would not have 
gotten through college. He was not like, alas, some 
students now, ungrateful and selfish. It is very beautiful 
to see how he constantly expresses this to Dr. Crato. In 
these letters it is evident that he is constantly trying to 
help Dr. Crato, as well as he can, especially in finding for 
him medical books and also literary works, for Crato was 
a great literateur, famous for his Latin style. So as Ur- 
sinus was nearer the great book markets of Leipsic and 
Frankford, than Crato in distant Breslau or Vienna, he 
constantly calls Crato's attention to new rare books and 
buys them when desired. In his second letter, he writes 
to Crato : "It will never seem to me as if I in the smallest 
degree repaid you or redeemed even the smallest part 
of my indebtedness to you." And, in one of his last 
letters in the university, he wrote to Crato: "Pray 
do not hesitate to ask for anything you might wish 
done for you. To be of service to you is not only 
a joy to me, but your right. And if only one of the 
small services I can do for you causes you pleasure, it 
will be myself that owes you gratitude." No wonder 
that the third and last part of our beautiful Heidelberg 
catechism is headed "Gratitude." Ursinus was full of it, 



278 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



he lived gratitude and could therefore so ably expound it. 

Is there not a lesson here for college students ? One 
of the highest and finest graces is gratitude. And yet 
how often are college students ungrateful. Many of 
them, it is true, are grateful, very grateful indeed, and 
all their after years show it to their friends and Alma 
Mater. But there are sometimes those who are un- 
grateful, — ungrateful to those who have helped in their 
education and forgetful for what they owed to them, — 
forgetful for money loaned to them, perhaps, to help 
them through college, — forgetful of parents, who, per- 
haps, with the greatest sacrifices, have put them through 
college, and forgetful of their parents' prayers, as well 
as of their gifts. O such things are shameful and such 
persons ought to be shamefaced all the remainder of 
their lives. They ought not to be able to look a man 
straight in the face. And how often, after students get 
out of college, do they forget their Alma Mater. Some 
of them even take it for granted that she owes them an 
education, when all the fees they ever paid to the college 
would not pay one-tenth, perhaps one-hundredth, of 
what it has cost the college to educate them. My hearer, 
Ursinus' example should be a stern rebuke to ingratitude 
of whatever sort and a strong incentive to great gratitude 
to the friends and the college that have helped you to 
gain an education. You ought to say to your patrons 
and to this college what Ursinus did. Sons of Ursinus, 
you ought to follow his example as he writes to Crato, "I 
am fully aware of what I owe you. It will never be pos- 
sible in the smallest way to repay you. The only thing 
I can do is this, continually to pray our Heavenly Father 
to reward you with his richest blessings, both in this life 
and the life to come." And such gratitude will trans- 
mute your dross into gold and transfigure your life. 



URSINUS' UNIVERSITY DAYS 



"A thousand blessings, Lord, to us Thou dost impart. 
We ask one blessing more, O Lord — a thankful 
heart/' 



PART IV 

CONCLUSION 



CHAPTER I 



the: peculiar significance: of the publication of 
the heidelberg catechism in 1 563* 

On March 13, 1781, the world was startled by the 
discovery of a new planet, Uranus. This discovery of 
the addition of a new planet to our solar system caused 
great wonder and joy everywhere. But the aberrations 
of its orbit could not be explained, until finally it was 
suggested that there was perhaps another planet beyond 
it. The course of this unknown planet was carefully 
calculated and its position located before it was ever 
discovered. It was then discovered simultaneously by 
two astronomers, Adams of England, and Leverrier of 
Paris, in 1846, and named Neptune. Since then, as our 
telescopes have become larger and stronger, new fixed 
stars have been discovered and also many wonderful 
nebulae. Suns larger than our sun and solar systems, 
compared with which, ours is merely a pigmy, have been 
discovered by the score. So that such discoveries have 
become rather a commonplace by this time, and they do 
not cause the wonder and excitement caused by the dis- 
covery of Uranus and Neptune. 

I have told this romantic story of the stars, because 
the publication of the Heidelberg catechism was like the 
bursting forth of a new star in the heavens. Stars, there 
were many in the heavens at that time, — I am now speak- 

* Address delivered at Central Theological Seminary, Day- 
ton, in the fall of 1913, with a few additions in reply to "Studies 
on the Heidelberg Catechism." 

283 



284 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



ing of the stars figuratively to represent the different 
catechisms, — catechisms, there were many in the six- 
teenth century. Their reprint shows that there were 
thirty-eight in south Germany and eighty-eight in middle 
Germany, in all one hundred and twenty-six. And when 
the north German catechisms are reprinted, the number 
will probably make a total of between one hundred and 
fifty and one hundred and seventy-five, to which must be 
added the Reformed catechisms of Switzerland and a few 
of other lands. And yet, of them all, only two have sur- 
vived until this time as world-wide catechisms, the cate- 
chism of Luther, of 1529, and the Heidelberg catechism, 
published over a quarter of a century later. Only one 
other Reformed catechism of that day has continued in 
use up to our time, the Emden catechism, — a catechism 
from which, as we have seen, some of our Heidelberg 
is drawn. Its influence on the world has, however, been 
very slight, as it has been mainly a local catechism. Only 
the Luther catechism and the Heidelberg remain unto 
this day, three hundred and fifty years after their birth. 

Hence the birth of the Heidelberg catechism must 
have had some significance about it that was peculiar. 
For more than twenty-five years, since the publication of 
Luther's catechism, in 1563, no such world-wide cate- 
chism had appeared. And since the Heidelberg cate- 
chism has appeared three hundred and fifty years ago, 
only one catechism of world-wide significance has been 
published, the Shorter catechism of the Presbyterian 
Church. Catechisms have come and catechisms have 
gone. Older catechisms, though excellent, like that of 
Brenz, the reformer, of Wurtemberg; newer ones, like 
Pezel's at Bremen, and the Zweibriicken catechism, have 
all passed away. But the Heidelberg has continued. 
There must, therefore, have been some peculiar signifi- 



THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CATECHISM 285 



cance about it when it appeared, that has made it shine 
like a star of the first magnitude and continue to shine 
with such undimmed lustre all these centuries. I, there- 
fore, call your attention to the peculiar significance 
of the publication of the Heidelberg catechism at the 
time of its publication, in 1563. It had a peculiar mes- 
sage to the world of its day, that struck the world like 
the discovery of a new planet or star. What was it? 

Before going into its peculiar significance for its day, 
permit me also to call your attention to a fact about 
the Heidelberg, that makes what was significant for that 
day, to be also significant for our day. It has been 
said, and with truth, that of all the great reformers, 
Zwingli, the founder of our church, was the most mod- 
ern, that is, his ideas were best suited to modern times. 
That is true. There was not the scholasticism about him 
that there was about the monk Luther. And as a patriot 
reformer, he is especially suited to our American free 
spirit. But what is true of Zwingli is also true of the 
Heidelberg catechism. It is the most modern of the 
old catechisms, — of the three great world-catechisms, the 
one most suited to the spirit of modern times. Though 
three hundred and fifty years old, it is not old. It has 
been ever new and as new today as when it was issued. 
It is, like the Gospel of Jesus enshrined in it, — to use our 
Saviour's own expression, — "a well of water springing 
up unto everlasting life," — a perpetual fountain of joy 
and comfort and hope. It has been like Christ, — the 
same yesterday, today and forever, because it has so 
much of Christ in it. So that, what was of special 
significance for its day will be especially significant for 
our day. And the lessons that I shall draw will be 
suited to us as they were to those who lived in the day 
when it was first published. 



286 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



I. IT IS IRENIC 

The first striking peculiarity of the catechism was, 
that it was intended to be a union catechism. You re- 
member how it came into being, — how the church of 
the Palatinate was then greatly divided. High-Luther- 
ans, like Hesshuss, read every other kind of Lutheran 
out of the church. And as for the Reformed, well, 
Hesshuss excommunicated Klebitz, one of the Reformed 
ministers at Heidelberg. As to catechisms it was no 
better. The Church-Order of the Elector, Otto Henry, 
of the Palatinate, which was the law for the Palatinate 
before our catechism was published, ordered that the 
catechism of Brenz, the low-Lutheran reformer of south 
Germany, was to be used. But Hesshuss and his party, 
in his zeal for Luther, wanted Luther's catechism to 
be used. So to stop the strife, Elector Frederick III, 
who had succeeded Otto Henry on the throne, cut the 
Gordian knot by ordering a new catechism to be written 
to heal these dissensions. And so the Heidelberg cate- 
chism came into being. 

The Heidelberg catechism has, therefore, always been 
looked upon as an irenical catechism ; that is, one mak- 
ing for peace and intended to bring about church 
union. It is true, it does not seem to be altogether 
irenic, and its irenical character has often been pressed 
too far, we think. For it boldly declares itself, especially 
against three opponents, — against Unitarians and Pelagi- 
ans in answers 33, 35, 62, 63 and 114; against Romanism 
in answers 30, 57, 62, 63, 64, 80, 95 and 98, and against 
the high-Lutherans, with their new doctrine of ubiquity 
in answers 47, 48, 76 and 78. But true irenics will 
never give up fundamentals and the catechism is right 
there. Present-day irenics often goes too far, so far as 



THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CATECHISM 287 



to imperil the whole cause of church-union, because it 
blurs out all differences and gives a composite creed 
as meaningless as a composite picture. Much irenics 
now is only syllabub and gives us a creed of the jelly-fish 
variety. The Heidelberg catechism is truly irenic, for 
it holds to fundamentals, and yet is favorable to union. 
It gives us a solid foundation on which to base our union. 

For there is a fact that must be remembered because 
of its peculiar significance then. The age in which it 
appeared was a very polemical age, especially the latter 
half of the sixteenth century. The reformers used harsh, 
very harsh words against each other. We would be 
sorry to see them used today. But we must remember 
that such expressions and denunciations were an inheri- 
tance to them from the monkish age before them, when 
the Catholic Church anathematized (and no one can curse 
like the Pope). Besides there is another reason for the 
harsh language of the reformers. In their reaction against 
error, especially against the errors of the Catholic Church, 
their adherence to principle became so dear and so in- 
tense that they often tended to become narrow. They 
had had to fight so hard for what they had, that it 
seemed so dear to them that they could not look beyond 
it. Zwingli was the only one who held out his hand to 
Luther. And so, too, the Heidelberg catechism was the 
only catechism that held its hands out to Lutherans and 
the Reformed alike, for the Reformed claimed it came 
under the Altered Augsburg Confession. The aim of 
Frederick was an honest one. He wanted to make it a 
catechism which would heal the differences in his land. 
When we first began our historical researches, more than 
thirty years ago, we were for years greatly puzzled by 
contradictory facts about the catechism. Its contents 
were decidedly Calvinistic. But every now and then a 



288 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



statement about Frederick III showed he wanted the 
Heidelberg catechism to be under the law of Germany, 
which allowed only the Augsburg Confession. How to 
harmonize these has been a problem. But it has finally 
come to us. Frederick wanted to make the catechism 
Lutheran enough so it might bring its adherents under 
the Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran Church, the 
only legal Protestant church of Germany of that day 
(the Reformed not being legally recognized until at the 
end of the Thirty Years' War, 1648). He wanted it to 
be under the Augsburg Confession, but (and this is sig- 
nificant) the Altered Augsburg Confession. And Fred- 
erick, while thus placing it under the Altered Augsburg, 
also wanted his catechism to be broad enough to include 
in it the Reformed. Whether the catechism came up 
to that is the question. It was only to be expected, 
when both authors were Reformed, that it would wink 
toward the Reformed. And Elector Frederick III 
winked at this dereliction, — that is, he passed it by with 
the thought that the catechism was better than either 
Lutheran and Reformed, — that it was according to the 
Bible. The catechism was therefore irenical. 

What a lesson for our day. Therefore it is the most 
modern of all the catechisms. For it is entirely up to 
the spirit of our age. There is none of the great world- 
catechisms on which the various Protestant churches could 
so well unite as the Heidelberg. This is a day of irenics, 
when the union of the churches is in the air. We may in- 
dividually differ as to the methods of union, but we all 
agreed on its principle and importance, — that it is right 
and necessary. How true are the words of that hymn 
about Christ's prayer at the Lord's Supper, that "they all 
may be one." 



THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CATECHISM 289 



"O may that holy prayer, 

His tenderest and best, 

The utterance of His latest care 
'Ere to His throne He passed, 

No longer unfulfilled remain 

The world's offense, Thy peoples' stain. 

II. A CREED-CATECHISM 

2. A second peculiarity of the Heidelberg catechism 
at the time of its publication was, that it was a creed- 
catechism. That was its second peculiarity over against 
any other catechism of its day. They had creeds in 
those days, — great creeds, which were accepted or 
adopted by the Church, as the Augsburg Confession of 
the Lutherans, and the Second Helvetic Confession of 
the Reformed. And they had catechisms in those days, 
many of them as we have seen. But these catechisms 
were not intended for church creeds, but only for use 
in catechization. They would have both a creed and a 
catechism. Thus the Lutheran Church had as its creeds 
the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles, and 
as its catechisms, Luther's and Brenz'. It was not sup- 
posed that a creed could be a catechism or a catechism 
a creed, — until the Heidelberg catechism came. Elector 
Frederick III did not dare draw it up as a creed only, 
for was not the Augsburg Confession the only legal 
creed of Germany? He knew he would be setting him- 
self against German law if he had done so. Yet he 
wanted not merely a catechism, for the theological ques- 
tions between him and the high-Lutherans were too 
severely theological for that. And yet they must be 
stated, so as to vindicate his theological position. You 
see he was in an awkward dilemma. He had to have 

19 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



a creed-catechism, which seemed impossible. And the 
Heidelberg catechism solved the impossible. It made 
the impossible possible. That was one of the most sig- 
nificant things about it in the days of its birth. It was 
written to be in some sense the creed of the church and 
at the same tme to be the catechism for the youth. It 
aimed to be, like the Gospel it enshrined, profound yet 
simple, deep yet clear, doctrinal yet with a living the- 
ology > — a strange union of opposites. So the catechism 
was both the creed of the Church as well as the cate- 
chism of the children, and as well adapted for the one 
as the other. The minister would preach on it on Sun- 
day afternoons, expounding its great profound truths, 
and then he would teach its simple faith to the children 
in the schools. This has always been one of the most 
remarkable peculiarities of our catechism. Some, it is 
true, have criticized it as being too much of a creed to 
be a catechism, and others, as being too much of a 
catechism to be a good creed. But they have been few. 
Its usefulness for both purpose has answered such de- 
tractors. 

The objections to the catechism are mainly of two 
kinds, pedagogical and doctrinal. Rev. Prof. George 
W. Richards, D.D., in his recent work, "Studies on the 
Heidelberg Catechism," pages 146-170, favors the objec- 
tions to the Heidelberg. On page 165 he notes the 
objections to the reformation catechisms, which, of 
course, include the Heidelberg. 

1. They discuss questions of abstract doctrine, which 
have lost their significance for our age. 

2. The material in the catechism is not adapted to 
the child, neither in his intellectual capacity nor to his 
religious experience. 

3. The catechisms grew out of the ancient rather 



THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CATECHISM 291 



than the modern methods of Bible study. 

4. Even the doctrinal systems of the catechisms no 
longer satisfy the religious consciousness of our time. 

These objections, however, are summed up in the 
two mentioned above. 

1. The pedagogical objection: "Their material is not 
adapted to the child, either in his intellectual capacity or 
religious experience." This brings to view the modern 
pedagogy, which is essentially rationalistic and tends to 
minimize, if not to utterly destroy, the supernatural. 
Who was the originator of this movement? Rosseau, 
whose confession of faith would not satisfy even a Uni- 
tarian today. He held that the child was not to be 
taught religion till he came to years of discretion. This 
pedagogy rules out the teaching of what the child does 
not understand. It will therefore rule out all teaching 
to the children about God (because they cannot appre- 
hend Him), all about sin, salvation, regeneration and 
immortality, all of which are beyond the ken of 
even those of us who are grown-ups. It rules out all 
religious propositions from education. But a child needs 
to be taught the great truths of religion, even if he does 
not understand all about them. He needs religion to 
enable him to grow up useful and honest and Christ- 
like. And nowhere will one find it more attractively 
presented than in our catechism, where it is pictured as 
a "comfort." But this modern pedagogy holds that 
nothing is to be taught to the child that is beyond his 
intellectual capacity. Well, what is the use of teaching 
the child anything at all, for everything that comes to 
the child is new and to him unknown before? The new 
pedagogy paralyzes all progress in the child. And it also 
bankrupts all education, for the child is always learning 
the unknown. Cut that incentive off and what incentive 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



has he for any education. The fundamental mistake of 
modern education is, that it makes education to be every- 
thing. It does not believe in instruction. Nothing is to 
be put into the child but what is gotten out of him, is its 
rule. We believe that the older view of education, which 
included both education and instruction, is better. It is 
certainly a broader view of education. There are cer- 
tainly some things that we must put into the mind of 
the child. And these are especially the doctrines which 
will mould the child's character. But they are the things 
the child does not and cannot fully understand, — the 
blessed doctrines of our faith. No, we believe in the 
principle of the older pedagogy, that the greater, larger 
and more important the ideas placed before the child, 
the greater the child will become. The child needs the 
inspiration of great ideals, ideals which he does not 
understand, yet which he, according to his inquisitive 
nature, can attack constantly. For he is always attack- 
ing the new and non-understandable. The unknown is 
the continued incentive to the child. So when this ped- 
agogy takes this incentive away, it is doing what harms 
the child. It does not understand the instincts of the 
child. And it especially mocks the early natural religious 
instincts of the child by giving it a stone for bread. 
This is the root-idea of modern pedagogy. 

Doubtless our opponents would reply, that they do 
not rule out religious ideas. Well, if they don't they 
are giving up the root-principle of their pedagogy, which 
is, that profound subjects must not be presented to the 
child, because he can not understand them. Any true 
religious ideas, such as God, sin, salvation, eternity, are 
the most profound of ideas. 

The new pedagogy rails against the old pedagogy, 
often tearing it up root and branch. But the older ped- 



THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CATECHISM 293 



agogy has produced the greatest men of genius and the 
highest minds in the past. Present civilization is only 
the product of their efforts. Calvinism and Puritanism, 

what mighty thinkers they have produced ; in comparison 
with them, the new pedagogy has as yet produced nothing. 
An education that has produced such leaders did so 
why? — because it has great elements in its education. 
And it was the supernatural that made them great. We 
believe that the catechisms that have the older ideas 
of God, sin, regeneration and immortality will produce 
better children and higher manhood and womanhood. 
They are what the children need. They are profoundly 
impressed by them. And they are nowhere taught with 
such power as in books like the Heidelberg. What great 
thinkers the Reformed Church has in the past produced 
on the basis of the Heidelberg. If she gives up that 
basis, what will she produce ? 

The other objection to the Heidelberg catechism is 
the theological. The new theology does not like it, be- 
cause out of sympathy with its doctrines, especially the 
substitutionary atonement of Christ and even the deity 
of Jesus Christ. The new theology, according to "Stud- 
ies in the Heidelberg Catechism" (page 147), travesties 
the old view of the doctrine of God and does so by be- 
coming there essentially pantheistic. Its doctrine of man 
(page 147) is evolutionary, for it traces sin to our brute 
nature. Then the fall of man is a fall up and not down. 
The third presupposition given there is that religion is 
a life. That is not new. The old theology also held it 
to be a life in the Holy Spirit. And as to the fourth 
mentioned there, the kingdom of God, this is not a new 
discovery of the new theology, for the old theology 
held it, though it did not emphasize it as much. But 
the danger of this over-increasing emphasis on the king- 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



dom of God is that we are getting so much sociology in 
religion that the spirituality is all gone, — the ethical has 
taken its place. But the ethical will be spiritless and 
sociology, ineffective, without spirituality as its inspira- 
tion. Religion has lost this in this age, due to the new 
theology. She needs to regain it again, if she would be 
mighty, for the victory of the kingdom of God. "Studies 
in the Heidelberg Catechism" (page 165), quotes Pro- 
fessor Hall, who generally poses as a great expert in 
pedagogy. It seems to us he does not know what he is 
talking about when he there says : "The most careful 
study of the child's mind shows that before eighteen or 
twenty years of age there is no interest in anything 
Pauline and that other elements than the Bible, than 
Paul's, should take precedence up to that age. "That 
has not been our experience as a pastor. W e have found 
that the children of the adolescent period are deeply in- 
terested in the Pauline, profoundly impressed with the 
doctrine of justification of Paul. It is what their nature 
calls for. Perhaps a doctrine of justification, such as 
Professor Hall teaches, which emasculates it of its centre 
of grace, does not appeal to the child. That is probably 
a reason why he makes such a blundering statement. 
Professor Richards writes approvingly of Rev. Prof. W. 
C. Schafter's Catechetical Manual. We would like to 
ask, why has Professor Schaeffer omitted the Pauline. 
Is it a concession to this new pedagogy? If so, we de- 
precate it, for we have had too high an opinion of him 
for that. But the Heidelberg does not avoid the Pauline. 
It takes in the whole of the New Testament in all its 
fulness of the revelation of the plan of God for our 
salvation. 

We must confess to an honest question when such 
things are mooted. It is, "How can ministers and pro- 



THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CATECHISM 295 



fessors, who at ordination and at induction into office, 
solemnly promise to maintain and defend the Heidelberg 
catechism, now try to criticize it and undermine its au- 
thority" : the consistency and ecclesiastical honesty of such 
actions, we are, to say the least, too obtuse to see. 

We deprecate any attempt to set aside the Heidelberg 
in our Reformed Church, believing that such an attempt 
will divide the Church. There are too many of us too 
deeply attached to it to see it dishonored. We believe, 
however, that if its answers were abbreviated, as is done 
in the excellent Shorter Heidelberg catechism by my 
colleague, Rev. Prof. David Van Home, D.D., it is adapt- 
able to our needs. The Heidelberg that has been so 
great and done so much for our Church, is yet needed 
to make her great in the future as in the past and to 
make her able to do much for the world's salvation and 
the victory of our faith. 

III. AN EXPERIMENTAL CATECHISM 

3. But there was a third significance in the Heidel- 
berg at the time of its birth. It was an experimental 
catechism, — a catechism of the heart as well as of the 
head. It was founded on the psycological experiences 
through which a Christian passes. It was not a mere 
cold theological treatise, but one of warm living faith. 
Most of the catechisms of its day were inclined to be 
mere theological statements. Occasionally we find a 
catechism which aimed to bring out the experimental 
side of religion as those of the Lasco type. But none 
of them ever began to approach the Heidelberg in the 
breadth and depth of personal experience. Thus take 
the prominence given by it to religion as a personal com- 
fort, to faith as a hearty confidence, to assurance of 



296 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



faith, these and many more show its experimental char- 
acter. Its questions are not merely in the third person 
singular or first person plural, as in other catechisms, but 
many in the second person singular, thus making them 
direct questions to the catechumen, and the answers are 
often in the first person, as expressions of personal faith 
by the catechumen. Thus, the first question and an- 
swer: "What is thy only comfort?" "That I, with body 
and soul am not my own, etc., also answers 5, 32, 39, 
44, 52, 58, 59, 60, 61, 94, 103, 104, 105, ill, 112 and 129, 
17 in all. All this has made the Heidelberg the greatest 
catechism of experience and that undoubtedly has been 
one of the causes of its wide-spread popularity. 

And yet, strange to say, this very peculiarity of the 
Heidelberg has been criticized and criticized by friends 
as near to us theologically as the Presbyterians. Rev. 
Prof. B. Warfield, of Princeton, in the Princeton Re- 
view, 1908, page 565, charges that our catechism is not 
free from a sort of leaven of spiritual utilitarianism 
when it asks, "What is thy comfort, what profit, etc." 
He charges it as being hedonistic and attempting to 
attract the child to religion by hedonistic and selfish 
ideas of enjoyment. Well, we would reply that if the 
Heidelberg is a sinner in this respect, Dr. Warfield's 
Shorter catechism of the Presbyterian Church is a 
sinner, too, for it has several questions which begin with 
"what are the benefits," as 36, 37, 38. And if the Hei- 
delberg catechism is wrong, then the New Testament is 
wrong, for our Saviour makes religion a matter of profit, 
as Jesus says: "What shall it profit a man," etc. 
Christ says : "Come unto me and I will give you rest," 
etc. Both Christ and Paul place religion before us 
as eternal happiness. Dr. Warfield's quarrel is not with 
the Heidelberg, but with the New Testament. Besides, 



THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CATECHISM 297 



he mistakes this idea in the Heidelberg, for it does not 
present religion as merely utilitarian, hedonistic and sel- 
fish, but, as it says in its 6th answer, that "we might 
live with him in eternal happiness, to glorify and praise 
Him. This last clause is exactly like the first answer 
of the vShorter catechism of the Presbyterians, that "the 
chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him for- 
ever." If the Heidelberg is wrong, we ask him is his 
Shorter catechism right. 

And then comes Rev. Dr. D. S. Gregory, in the In- 
dependent of December 16, 1897, where, after quoting 
our first answer, he says : "Mark the egoism of it : — 
I my, my, my, me, me, my, my, my, me, me." He 
thus attacks it as leading to spiritual pride and egoism. 
We reply that his difficulty is not with the Heidelberg 
but with the New Testament. For if our catechism is 
wrong, then Paul was wrong when he said: "I know 
whom I have believed," and Job was wrong when he 
said, "I know that my Redeemer liveth." The New Testa- 
ment demands such assurance of faith and Christian 
testimony, and so does even his Shorter catechism. Such 
objections have no standing. I greatly fear that these 
eminent divines of the Presbyterian Church are more 
affected by jealousy of the Heidelberg, lest it will, by its 
popularity, replace their Shorter catechism, and just 
because of this very experimental character, which the 
Shorter catechism lacks. 

No, the combination of head- and heart-faith in the 
Heidelberg, of intellectual faith and personal experience, 
has been one of the most striking peculiarities of our 
catechism. The Heidelberg catechism, though it knew it 
not then, yet solved a problem that it has taken three 
centuries for the world and the church to finally locate 
and attempt to solve. I say both the world and the 



298 THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



church, for both have been struggling at the same prob- 
lem. 

And first as to the world. And by the world, I mean 
the world as purely secular, the world of thought, whose 
quintessence is philosophy. For this world of thought 
has been ruled for two centuries by what is called in- 
tellectualism. Everything else was made secondary or 
ruled out of court. Logic reigned. Everything must be 
made rational. Pure intellectualism was the king. And 
now what is happening? I was reading just the other 
day one of the greatest of recent books of today on phi- 
losophy and what does it say, — that intellectualism in phi- 
losophy has had its day and that experimentalism is com- 
ing in to correct its errors. The appearance of Professor 
James' great book on "Varieties of Religious Experi- 
ence," is epochal and proves this. Its grant of the 
truth of experimentalism has tolled the death-knell of 
intellectualism. For it has been found out that intellec- 
tualism left out many problems and warped the answers 
to others. It is therefore bankrupt. For emotionalism 
is just as important as intellectualism and the heart is as 
important as the head, indeed the springs of action are 
in the heart. Why, what philosophy has been trying to 
find out for these centuries and is just now announcing 
as a great discovery, the Heidelberg catechism declared 
three hundred and fifty years ago, as it made emotion- 
alism as important as intellectualism in its philosophy of 
religion. 

Well the Church has also had the same problem of 
intellectualism. She continually inclined to become 
merely intellectual. Faith and experience became so 
divorced that she had much dead orthodoxy, that is, 
her ministers and members were orthodox enough, but 
religion had little effect on their lives. Theology con- 



THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CATECHISM 299 



stantly tended to become scholastic. Logic ruled in the- 
ology. The great problem of the Church has been to 
make her faith living and not merely intellectual, to unite 
faith and life. 

And now permit me to call your attention to one 
of the most wonderful romances in Church history, for 
even theology has its romances. In the eighteenth 
century, Count Zinzendorf was converted, it is said, by 
seeing a painting of Christ on the cross with the words 
under it. 

"All this I did for thee, 
What hast Thou done for me?" 

He ever after made the Christ and the cross central 
in faith, even exaggerating it so as to make it offensively 
prominent in its crassness. But he impressed the promi- 
nence of the cross on the Moravians who ever after em- 
phasized it. 

Over a century ago, a Reformed minister in Germany, 
an army chaplain named Schleiermacher, was so afraid 
his son would be led astray by the rationalism in the 
universities, that he sent him to the Moravian School 
at Barby. The young man remained there some time. 
But he was naturally inclined to liberal theology and the 
Moravians were too strict in their rules and too narrow 
in their doctrines for him, so he ran away to Halle uni- 
versity and there drank of rationalism to the deepest 
fill. 

But though he wandered far from old orthodoxy, 
there were two things that he had learned at Barby he 
never forgot. One was that Christ was central in the- 
ology. And that idea he stamped on the theology of the 
nineteenth century. Theology must centre in Christ. 
That idea created a new era in theology, as it made it 



THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM 



Christocentric. And the other idea that Schleiermacher 
got from the Moravians was the one to which especially 
we refer for our purpose. Schleiermacher taught that 
theology was not a mere matter of the head. He taught 
that the centre and basis of theology was a feeling, — 
the feeling of dependence on God. He made that feeling 
the sum and substance of religion. And that idea has 
revolutionized all modern theology. Schleiermacher 
solved the problem that had troubled the Church for many 
centuries. He taught that religion was not a mere mat- 
ter of doctrine, but was of the heart. In a word, where 
before orthodoxy was cold and dead, it now became living 
and feeling. Now in thus praising Schleiermacher, I do 
not mean to say that I agree with him in all his theology. 
He makes too many concessions in it to the pantheists. 
But he made the discovery of a principle about religion 
that is all important. I am also willing to grant that 
often this very principle that religion is a feeling of de- 
pendence of God, has been taken advantage by emotion- 
alism and even by rationalists. There are dangers in his 
position. But at the same time he struck a true key- 
note when he declared that emotional religion was as 
necessary as intellectual ; and that to keep religion warm 
and living the heart must beat in it. 

And so now theological thought, like philosophical 
thought, has given up the old intellectualism so that 
there may be no more dead orthodoxy. It aims to make 
room for the feelings so that faith may be vital. Why, 
my dear friends, that is what the Heidelberg catechism 
said three hundred and fifty years ago. It made religion 
a matter of the heart as well as of the head. It is true 
some Reformed theologians have tried to intellectualize 
it, but there it is, — its emotionalism, warm and living. 

Now this is the reason why our catechism is the most 



THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CATECHISM 301 



modern of the catechisms and the one most up-to-date. 
This is the reason why it has been so popular in our 
own Church all these centuries and is so popular today. 
This is the reason why, when, in our own Church a 
century ago, some of our ministers published their own 
private catechisms for their catechumens, yet these were 
all set aside and our Church went back entirely to the 
Heidelberg. These other catechisms did not have the 
warmth and personal faith of the Heidelberg. This is 
the reason why a Presbyterian divine once said to the 
writer, "If our Shorter catechism had a little of the Hei- 
delberg it would be better," and he added: "If we had 
a catechism that would combine the excellence of the 
Shorter and the Heidelberg it would be the ideal cate- 
chism." 

My hearers, when the Heidelberg catechism was born, 
it started a new era, it set a new pace for the world. It 
was like the flaring up of a new star. It was the most 
significant event in the history of catechisms, before and 
after it. 





o > 






* - 





* - VP <p • <5 










o 

Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
0 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 



1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 






A o. 






1 V . « • 








1 * A>*^ - 








D0BBS BROS. 

LIBRARY BINDING 



NOV 81 % ? 

ST. AUGUSTINE ? V •i^L'* *0 * * * °* ^> 



32084 





